Warlords in Drone Frenzy – Obama's cowardly export slaughter weapon planned.

Run_to_da_hills

Jonny7 wrote: »

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-31/u-s-said-to-reduce-civilian-deaths-after-increasing-cia-pakistan-strikes.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/22/world/la-fg-drone-strikes-20110222

http://www.longwarjournal.org/pakistan-strikes.php

http://www.economist.com/node/21524916

http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/11/02/counting_civilian_casualties_in_cia_s_drone_war

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/02/26/20120226study-drone-strikes.html?nclick_check=1

Those figures mean absolutely nothing as it is all pro Obama bulls*it used by his apologists trying to justify this illegal form of warfare.

This is how the United states come up with its terrorist statistics

If the United States shoots a missile, by drone and kills say two dozen people without even knowing anything about them or their backgrounds they will immediately label anyone male or female a "terrorist" by virtue of their proximity and association. Anyone within a certain age group that is even near a terrorist or terrorist activity is guilty and is subsequently murdered by association and is counted as a terrorist statistic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7x79_2ihHxA

Run_to_da_hills

Jonny7 wrote: »

What qualifies those various reports and information as "pro Obama bull****"?

It boils down to what Obama defines as a "terrorist" as I have already just pointed out.

Jonny7

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

It boils down to what Obama defines as a "terrorist" as I have already just pointed out.

No it doesn't, most of these reports are independent and have multiple sources, including those within Pakistan. Some of these reports even pre-date Obama's presidency by several years.

KamiKazi

Did the OP take the thread title from the Daily Mail by any chance?

Run_to_da_hills

KamiKazi wrote: »

Did the OP take the thread title from the Daily Mail by any chance?

No Its unique for the sneaky bastard.

Be like Nutella

The subject of drone strikes is complex. Anyone here who has made sweeping statements on either side of this debate is most likely wrong in some respect. I know, I've done it myself and subsequently learned from it... by learning more and more about the whole thing. There's simply too many facets to this thing to bash it out in a forum and end up with a winner or loser in this debate and no matter what we say here drone strikes are still being employed in the 'war on terror' and it doesn't look like it's going to stop any time soon, if ever.

From a short term military perspective and when geopolitics is taken into account, drones are pretty awesome, to the military. They provide an option to do something, for instance to hit a bunch of guys highly likely to be terrorists according to your best Intel in some location on some hill somewhere where otherwise you couldn't/wouldn't do anything else. So they take that option. It seems like it's no more complicated than that and to the military it isn't (nor would they care if it was, they have a job to do end of story... a classic dichotomy of humanity repeated many times in history, as we know well).

From an industry perspective this thing is big business on any scale. There's billions spent annually on drones globally so the lobbying is and has been in full swing in every major spenders government - obviously mostly in the US where the vast majority of the money is spent. It is in many tens of thousands of peoples jobs, careers, bank accounts and interests for us all to view drones as a smart successful and patriotic choice of weapon in the global war on terror (or GWOT as they call it). Whether drones are or not is not their concern. Entire Fighter wings are being replaced with drone pilots and drone sensor operators operating from Creech AFB just outside of Vegas. 22 year olds in mock flight suits step out of their cars and into blacked out converted 40 foot containers and sit in pairs in front of screens while a team leader stands behind them quarter-backing the mission of the day. Each attack drone costs anywhere from 10,20,30,40 Million dollars, a piece, before any other costs... this is HUUUGE business and it's only warming up. If you think that this thing is purely political or purely about terrorists or purely about business you're way off. There's a complex mix of interests pushing this thing from day one. If you want to talk conspiracy there's about 20 different ones at play and they would all completely and proudly admit to their plans because they don’t see anything wrong in what they are trying to do, and in some respects they shoudn’t.

The Neocons (I know we're all sick of that phrase, but that doesn't mean they're gone away... they've been around for decades, they're not going anywhere soon) love drones because they hate what they would term as the liberal media's interfering with the expression of American power and when US lives are not at risk in areas where journalists are not sent, can't or don't want to or don't bother going then you can basically do a lot more without the tedious scrutiny of the 'liberal media'... so that element of Washington is 100% behind more drones doing more stuff. And some of them have valid logical arguments. It is wrong to brand everything as crazy, these guys believe in this GWOT and they genuinely see drones as making America safer and either way their opinions have weight.

Obama himself came into office with a drone plan. An actual strategy which he personally was very interested in applying to the shrinking US footprint in the mid east primarily to try and dismantle, by attrition, the functions of AQ, mostly in the FATAA region on the Pakistan/AG border. And he has been successful in doing that, to a CERTAIN degree. Were their political drivers pushing this 'drone' doctrine? of course there were to think otherwise is to be unrealistic. You're looking at a complex man who was very much against large US military action in the mid east and still wanted to attack AQ to make the US safer (genuinely) and understood that his options were very much limited and very importantly his TIME FRAME was also limited. He knew 100% what he was doing and between himself and Brennan and Petraeus and Holder and a small group of determined guys from justice to the pentagon to special forces to the CIA (who own the drones) he constructed himself a functioning but narrow team of people who would work between many agencies to basically bring Intel to him and his inner circle regularly and 'sell' individual drone strikes to him which he would then agree to or, more rarely, disagree to. This system was up and running within 2 months of stepping into the Oval office and ramped up drone strike frequency to a strike - every 2 days. I'm surprised he had time for anything else.. Bottom line is that this drone thing is Obama's baby. Forget Bush. Whether it got out of hand and changed into a totally different beast is another question and the more important end of the debate.

War Weariness: It's impossible to underestimate how sick the US population is of war (not that they saw any of it near their own houses mind you.. apart form the endless stream of broken soldiers returning to a thankless country). Iraq was a pile of ****e there isn't one credible argument against that statement left emanating from the mouths of anyone taken seriously so how do you think the soldiers themselves feel? I know a couple of Irish brothers who went off to fight for the US in Iraq and just came home so disillusioned with everything they wished they never left. Two smart marines who consider the whole thing a bunch of ****e in retrospect. So drones work out just fine thank you, to the US population (who know about as much about the drone strikes as anyone else who hasn't made a special effort which is very few). IF NO US LIVES ARE AT RISK DO WHAT YOU ****IN WANT is basically the short version, but again it's not quite as simple as that... but it's not that inaccurate either.

Statistics: Nobody here or anywhere knows what % of people killed by drones has been civilian and by civilian I mean just people, not Taliban, not militant group, not haqani network, not terrorist organization drivers, not AQ bomb makers, not AQ mid level planners, not would-be suicide bombers just .. people. Nobody knows that. Is it more than 1%? all investigation seems to think it is a hell of a lot more than 1%. Is it a tiny number as the US government has said it is? Definitely not, there are enough supportable facts to show that the number of straight forward civilians killed in Drone strikes accidentally or in the bracket of acceptable collateral damage is not tiny and is certainly at the very minimum in the hundreds. Anybody wants to argue against that be my guest... it is a very central FACT to the whole drone debate thing that there have been many civilians killed by drones. The US has changed its categorization of people killed in drone strikes along the way. Currently they categorize ANY MALE AGED 15 OR OVER IN THE VICINITY OF THE TARGET LOCATION AS 'MILITANTS' AND THEREFORE NOT CIVILIAN CASUALTIES. This arbitrary victim-tiering is complex and there is certainly some political motivation behind it. It is certainly not in Obama's interest to have anybody killed that wasn't directly targeted categorized as civilian casualties even though we know of course that that is exactly what they are. Whether their deaths are acceptable to you is debatable, that they are civilians is not.


These are just a few of those facets. Accountability and international laws of conflict and morality and the current failing state status of Pakistan and Afghanistan are just a few more which require discussion to really get a grip on the big picture of this expanding Drone War.

Be like Nutella

" US detained the “worst of the worst” in Guantánamo for years before releasing six hundred of them, uncharged "

from the Living Under Drones Report

http://livingunderdrones.org/

" In April 2011, for example, US forces used a predator drone to fire upon and kill two American soldiers in Afghanistan who had apparently been mistaken for Taliban fighters. In September 2010, US special forces bombed the convoy of Zabet Amanullah, a candidate in parliamentary elections, killing him along with nine fellow election workers; US forces reportedly mistakenly believed Amanullah to be a member of the Taliban. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, there have been documented cases of opportunistic informants providing false tips to settle scores, advance sectarian or political agendas, or to obtain financial reward. For example, in Guantanamo, a reported 86 percent of those imprisoned were turned over to coalition forces in response to a bounty offered by the US. Pakistani and Afghan villagers reported the bounty amount was “[e]nough money to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life.” For several years, the US government regularly referred to Guantanamo detainees as “the worst of the worst.” Classified as “enemy combatants,” prisoners remained in US custody for significant periods of time, often years, and often without being charged. Yet of the 779 detainees held at Guantanamo Bay since 2002, 603 have now been released. According to the US government itself, 92% of prisoners in the facility were never Al Qaeda fighters.What does this mean in the targeted killing context? Human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith of Reprieve articulates the implications:
Just as with Guantanamo Bay, the CIA is paying bounties to those who will identify “terrorists.” Five thousand dollars is an enormous sum for a Waziri informant, translating to perhaps £250,000 in London terms. The informant has a calculation to make: is it safer to place a GPS tag on the car of a truly dangerous terrorist, or to call down death on a Nobody (with the beginnings of a beard), reporting that he is a militant? Too many “militants” are just young men with stubble "
_____________________________________________________________________________

Consider justifying this particular attack, on any level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenagai_airstrike

The Chenagai airstrike took place on October 30, 2006, around 5:00 am. local time. Missiles were fired at a madrassa in Chenagai village in Bajaur region of Pakistan. An eyewitness has stated that the madrassa was filled with local students who had resumed studies after the Eid ul-Fitr holiday. 82 people died in the attack. Initially it was reported that the Pakistani military carried out the attack but later it became apparent that it was carried out by US drones.

_______

Retaliation

Following attacks against the madrasa in the Bajaur tribal agency, on November 8, 2006, a suicide bomber killed 42 Pakistani soldiers and injured 20 others in Dargai, 85 miles north-west of Islamabad. It has already called the deadliest attack by the militants on the army since it began operations against pro-Taliban and al-Qaeda forces. Though no one has claimed responsibility as yet, the attack has been linked to the Bajaur militants.

Torakx

Good comments there.
This is the video from the Living under drones link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yMOzvmgVhc

Somebody may have told me already, but why is the US at war with Pakistan?
Could it be more of an Israeli issue or reason?
Or are they trying to do another Afghanistan job?
Or does the government in Pakistan agree with bombings on their citizens?

I would have thought if another country starts bombing, you would jump up quick and retaliate or apeal to the UN or something along those lines.

Be like Nutella

no no no the US ain't war with Pakistan... It's just that there's a part of Pakistan on the border with AG called Waziristan which is basically a lawless region where Taliban lads hop over the border form AG to hide out on the basis that soldiers wont follow them into Pakistan which is true. Also in this area (smaller than Leinster) AQ and the Haqani network (both of which are targets of US drones) live/hide/meet up/make their plans in relative safety (or so they thought). The US is hated beyond belief in Pakistan so they could never get official permission to roll in with special ops guys and take out possible terrorists without a) losing men and b) causing internal uproar within Pakistan (an extremely Islamic run country who views the US Gov as an enemy). All of this suits the concept of Drone Strikes although even those are not OFFICIALLY ALLOWED by Pakistan either but that is a complicated subject and requires a lot more feeling out to understand properly. The US is NOT at war with Pakistan and the Pakistani public DO NOT want the US to do the Drone strikes NOR DO THE DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED REPS WITHIN PAKISTAN EITHER... it's the military intelligence wing of the Pakistani establishment called the ISI (PAKISTANI CIA) who secretly have made a deal with the US for years and which is based on Pakistan receiving billions of dollars in US aid every year for many years now which helps the ISI to maintain its hold on actual physical power within Pakistan (all of which is so corrupt and fuked up it'd make Washington seem like a quakers meeting)

Either way the US is NOT AT WAR with Pakistan but has been killing its citizens (collateral damage) in the hundreds for the last 9 years straight which has caused a massive wave of internal strife and relative increase in suicide bombings which literally mirror the rise in US drone strikes within Pakistan since July 2004.

scroll to the bottom and look how from about 2007 the drone strikes and suicide bombings (which just kill even more Pakistani's) are correlated.

http://pakistanbodycount.org/analytics


In reality there is actually hatred for the terrorists and militants which the US routinely attempts to assassinate by the Pakistanis themselves but they just wish THEY WERE THE ONES KILLING THEM WITH THEIR OWN DRONES (they are developing drones but they're really ****ty compared to the US ones and the US don't want to just hand em over to a massively corrupt Islamist state who traditionally hates the US yet has deep intelligence and AID ties and has been America's bitch for decades in one form or another.... which isn't rare and is just a reality of America's relationship with the east in the last 50 years).... but back on topic - again....

the US has been carrying out many hundreds of fairly indiscriminate assassination strikes, using drones, outside of a war zone, inside of a country with which it is not at war with, and which has expressed publicly on behalf of its people that it does not want the US doing the strikes at all, and which has and does result in constant murder of Pakistani civilians as well as the intended targets. In legal terms this is what is generally considered A BIG RIDICULOUSLY UNSUPPORTABLE GOATFUK WHICH MAKES A COMPLETE MOCKERY OF ALL INTERNATIONAL NORMS AND TAKES ADVANTAGE OF THE NOVEL NATURE OF DRONES AND WHAT THEY ALLOW YOU TO DO.... which you would otherwise be unable and unwilling to do under any circumstances.. not with F15s, not with Cruise missiles, not with special forces not, with gunships, not with anything people here have posited as possible parallels of which there are none. They use the drones because they can... that's all.

Jonny7

Be like Nutella wrote: »

no no no the US ain't war with Pakistan... It's just that there's a part of Pakistan on the border with AG called Waziristan which is basically a lawless region where Taliban lads hop over the border form AG to hide out on the basis that soldiers wont follow them into Pakistan which is true. Also in this area (smaller than Leinster) AQ and the Haqani network (both of which are targets of US drones) live/hide/meet up/make their plans in relative safety (or so they thought). The US is hated beyond belief in Pakistan so they could never get official permission to roll in with special ops guys and take out possible terrorists without a) losing men and b) causing internal uproar within Pakistan (an extremely Islamic run country who views the US Gov as an enemy). All of this suits the concept of Drone Strikes although even those are not OFFICIALLY ALLOWED by Pakistan either but that is a complicated subject and requires a lot more feeling out to understand properly. The US is NOT at war with Pakistan and the Pakistani public DO NOT want the US to do the Drone strikes NOR DO THE DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED REPS WITHIN PAKISTAN EITHER... it's the military intelligence wing of the Pakistani establishment called the ISI (PAKISTANI CIA) who secretly have made a deal with the US for years and which is based on Pakistan receiving billions of dollars in US aid every year for many years now which helps the ISI to maintain its hold on actual physical power within Pakistan (all of which is so corrupt and fuked up it'd make Washington seem like a quakers meeting)

I wouldn't say this is too far off the mark.

scroll to the bottom and look how from about 2007 the drone strikes and suicide bombings (which just kill even more Pakistani's) are correlated.

The Bush decision to go to war in Afghanistan, and subsequent failings, meant that a lot of the initially militancy in Pakistan could be indirectly apportioned to that.

However, what must be remembered, is that most of the civilians killed by Taliban, militias, and various groups under Al Qaeda ideology is that they have little or nothing to do with the US. The Taliban and others see this as a golden opportunity to push for their own quasi fundamentalist Islamic state.

Towns literally arms themselves, and are assaulted by militias, if they don't capitulate, they suffer vicious attacks by suicide bombers, often targeting local Immans who don't subscribe to Taliban "laws".

There are some good books on the Taliban that are based before the events of 911 and after, which offer incredible insight. The most condensed summary is probably wikipedia for both the ongoing war between Pakistan and the militants and also for the history of the Taliban.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

Note the head of the Northern Alliance, Massoud, very interesting chap, arguably Afghanistan's best chance of stable leadership in decades.

Be like Nutella

3 good questions I read in a report.

• Does the geographic and psychological distance between the operator and target make attacks more likely?

• Does using unmanned systems mean attacks happen more often?

• Does the supposed accuracy of drone sensors and cameras mean that
commanders are more willing to undertake ‘riskier’ strikes (in terms of
possible civilian casualties) than they would previously have undertaken? and therefore carry out more total missions than you otherwise would?

I personally think the answer is YES to all 3 questions and so the common theme I think is that the self-limiting factor of 'risk to your own safety' which has played a part in all warfare to date is now absent... making decisions to carry out acts of violence more likely and more politicized and that for me is the crux of the whole damn thing.

Time will show that drones dehumanized war and made murderers out of generals and presidents by the simple fact that this whole new paradigm shift towards remote preemptive warfare (which is nothing at all similar to cruise missiles or high alt drops so don't give me that... they're entirely different) has happened faster than our wisdom has evolved. We are using drones like guns in our hands in a battle where we take shots as often as we can but the difference is WE are not at RISK any more when we USE our gun so we just shoot like sh1t at 'enemies' who end up like fish in a barrel and fuk em all for living where they live because this Global War On Terror is an endless border-less war against all those who would HATE America and so let's just kill as many of them as possible til somebody tries to stop us because clearly 9/11 happens every week so we have the right to murder 3000 of them every week... forever. Fuk the law, fuk a balanced response, fuk accountability and fuk the media asking stupid questions. Let's just stamp out jihadist hatred with our big drone boot because that's clearly going to work. Clearly.

It really is a case of 'anyone else got a better idea?? No? right so keep killin em by their hundreds... sure that won't end bad or anything.'

I personally hope the media start to cover the moral and philosophical angle to this thing more until leaders start to speak up and ask more questions and demand more accountability and democratize this out of control program. The CIA are doing what they want how they want as much as they want without oversight and it isn't doing a damn thing to reduce jihad-ism towards US interests and is very arguably creating more and more hatred and vengeance. The main driver of course is Intel - the more you look the more you hear the more people you want to go after... not capture or even attempt to capture but murder using a remote flying sniper rifle. Every bit of Intel which points out a guy who may hit the US or its interests in the future is put in a file and preemptively murdered... that is basically what is happening. So the more they hear and the more they look for these guys the more people they're going to have to blow up and that creates more fuking guys that HATE the US for killing their family members and will be so easily persuaded by some new OBL.

The whole thing seems so insane.

The generals are just trying to do their job and view everything from an efficient military perspective, ok fine you can't blame them they are so conditioned to view the world in a certain way that's their lives, their jobs.

And the CIA guys see so much raw Intel telling them the whole world is after them every day... so many risks... everywhere.

The politicians want to serve their lobbying friends, their blood thirsty Arab-hatin ignorant public and appear permanently and manically patriotic to the point of baseless insanity to their hardliner party friends.

The drone makers and inventors are just supplying a market - just literally reacting to supply and demand..... similar to the atom bomb... they want it you make it.... until you make something so dangerous and easy to use that they buy it by the boatload and find ways to use it as much as possible.

Military Industrial Complex in action ...and that is not to be a CT nut job in any way.. this is clearly the M.I.C. and market forces in action.

Everything is connected. Energy security, gas prices, elections, the drone industry, Obama's limited warfare strategy, war weariness, new invention, domestic politics, boys with toys at the CIA/DOD/SOCOM... it's all connected and it all drives this drone thing forward faster than we should let it, unchecked and untamed it presents more risks to us than it proposes to reduce.

When you learn enough about it, your moral rational brain does not allow you to continue to view it as 'ok'. Simply too many elements on the CON side.

---

Dwight D. Eisenhower
January 17, 1961:

" In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. "

Be like Nutella

Attack Drones, some info

The latest figures I can find show approx 250 armed drones in use between the USAF and the CIA.

The CIA have been the ones to do the Pakistan strikes because they can deny it (they have approx 30 of the drones and operate them directly from Langley, Virginia - CIA HQ)

There are literally thousands of other smaller unarmed surveillance drones in the army, navy and other sections but for now the 250 Predators and Reapers are the ones doin the killing.

Up to now the attack drone of choice has been mostly the Predator drone but the Reaper will be the attack drone of the future until longer range stealth drones that can take off from carriers are finished development.

The MQ-9 Reaper is currently becoming the attack drone of choice for the next decade. They have about 40-50 in use at the moment and there are another 480 on the way. They are approx 40 Million bucks a pop so we're talking a program cost of 11-13 billion dollars once economies of scale kick in.

These Reaper teams are already replacing entire Air Force Wings - plane for drone!

They can go 14 hours non stop at 360 mph at 50,000 feet carrying 14 Hellfire missiles OR even a couple of 500 lb Laser guided GBU all purpose bombs - accurate to within a few meters with a lethal blast radius of approx 40m.... which is baaaaaaaaaaaad. We really do not want drones carrying those!! Ever!!!

Hellfires cost the US Gov about 60k each whereas the bombs are only 20k so hopefully accountants don't call the shots!

Reaper

Specs

• Length: 36 ft 1 in (11 m)
• Wingspan: 65 ft 7 in (20 m)
• Height: 11 ft 10 in (3.6 m)
• Empty weight: 4,901 lb (2,223 kg)
• Max takeoff weight: 10,494 lb (4,760 kg)
• Fuel capacity: 4,000 lb (1,800 kg)
• Payload: 3,800 lb (1,700 kg)
  • Internal: 800 lb (360 kg)
  • External: 3,000 lb (1,400 kg)
• Powerplant: 1 × Honeywell TPE331-10 turboprop, 900 hp (671 kW) with Digital Electronic Engine Control (DEEC)[77]

Performance

• Maximum speed: 555 mph; 893 km/h (482 kn)
• Cruise speed: 360 mph; 580 km/h (313 kn) [78]
• Range: 999 nmi; 1,150 mi (1,850 km)
• Endurance: 14 hours fully loaded[79]
• Service ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,000 m)
• Operational altitude: 25,000 ft (7.5 km)[80]

Armament

• 7 hardpoints

• Up to 1,500 lb (680 kg) on the two inboard weapons stations[81]
• Up to 750 lb (340 kg) on the two middle stations[81]
• Up to 150 lb (68 kg) on the outboard stations[81]
• Center station not used

• Up to 14 AGM-114 Hellfire air to ground missiles can be carried or four Hellfire missiles and two 500 lb (230 kg) GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bombs. The 500 lb (230 kg) GBU-38 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) can also be carried. Testing is underway to support the operation of the AIM-92 Stinger air-to-air missile.

Here's a patch that the Reaper teams have worn.. a little disturbing, but I'm probably just a pussy... everybody should be allowed to look cool when bombing madras's full of children.

http://snippits-and-slappits.blogspot.ie/2012/09/drone-badges-pictures-worth-thousand.html

Jonny7

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Attack Drones, some info

The latest figures I can find show approx 250 armed drones in use between the USAF and the CIA.

The CIA have been the ones to do the Pakistan strikes because they can deny it (they have approx 30 of the drones and operate them directly from Langley, Virginia - CIA HQ)

There are literally thousands of other smaller unarmed surveillance drones in the army, navy and other sections but for now the 250 Predators and Reapers are the ones doin the killing.

Up to now the attack drone of choice has been mostly the Predator drone but the Reaper will be the attack drone of the future until longer range stealth drones that can take off from carriers are finished development.

The MQ-9 Reaper is currently becoming the attack drone of choice for the next decade. They have about 40-50 in use at the moment and there are another 480 on the way. They are approx 40 Million bucks a pop so we're talking a program cost of 11-13 billion dollars once economies of scale kick in.

These Reaper teams are already replacing entire Air Force Wings - plane for drone!

They can go 14 hours non stop at 360 mph at 50,000 feet carrying 14 Hellfire missiles OR even a couple of 500 lb Laser guided GBU all purpose bombs - accurate to within a few meters with a lethal blast radius of approx 40m.... which is baaaaaaaaaaaad. We really do not want drones carrying those!! Ever!!!

Hellfires cost the US Gov about 60k each whereas the bombs are only 20k so hopefully accountants don't call the shots!

Reaper

Specs

• Length: 36 ft 1 in (11 m)
• Wingspan: 65 ft 7 in (20 m)
• Height: 11 ft 10 in (3.6 m)
• Empty weight: 4,901 lb (2,223 kg)
• Max takeoff weight: 10,494 lb (4,760 kg)
• Fuel capacity: 4,000 lb (1,800 kg)
• Payload: 3,800 lb (1,700 kg)
  • Internal: 800 lb (360 kg)
  • External: 3,000 lb (1,400 kg)
• Powerplant: 1 × Honeywell TPE331-10 turboprop, 900 hp (671 kW) with Digital Electronic Engine Control (DEEC)[77]

Performance

• Maximum speed: 555 mph; 893 km/h (482 kn)
• Cruise speed: 360 mph; 580 km/h (313 kn) [78]
• Range: 999 nmi; 1,150 mi (1,850 km)
• Endurance: 14 hours fully loaded[79]
• Service ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,000 m)
• Operational altitude: 25,000 ft (7.5 km)[80]

Armament

• 7 hardpoints

• Up to 1,500 lb (680 kg) on the two inboard weapons stations[81]
• Up to 750 lb (340 kg) on the two middle stations[81]
• Up to 150 lb (68 kg) on the outboard stations[81]
• Center station not used

• Up to 14 AGM-114 Hellfire air to ground missiles can be carried or four Hellfire missiles and two 500 lb (230 kg) GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bombs. The 500 lb (230 kg) GBU-38 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) can also be carried. Testing is underway to support the operation of the AIM-92 Stinger air-to-air missile.

Here's a patch that the Reaper teams have worn.. a little disturbing, but I'm probably just a pussy... everybody should be allowed to look cool when bombing madras's full of children.

http://snippits-and-slappits.blogspot.ie/2012/09/drone-badges-pictures-worth-thousand.html

Hmmm, I get the feeling if these drones were operated by Hamas there wouldn't be close to the same rhetoric.

Also, a little perspective wouldn't go amiss. Simple home-made bombs kill and maim multitudes more than these high-tech weapons, and more people were killed in one Mexican border-town than the whole of Afghanistan last year.

Be like Nutella

" Hmmm, I get the feeling if these drones were operated by Hamas there wouldn't be close to the same rhetoric. "

well I wouldn't be pleased about it.... but I get your point the US does get an awful lot of abuse vis a vis the weapons it uses and so forth..... but not for no reason. It ain't just blind US-Bashing if that's what you're getting at... although blind america-bashing does go on... all the time I have to admit... not by me though.

Brown Bomber

Jonny,

Your defense of this disgusts me personally. You cheer on a President who does this. Is there a limit on the actual number of murdered children when you would stop supporting this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zf8bnYF-WxE

Sleep tight in your nice, comfortable home.

Run_to_da_hills

A US drone strike in Shin Warsak, South Waziristan on December 1 2012 marked the 300th drone strike in Pakistan of Barack Obama’s presidency, according to Bureau research.

The attack was the second since President Obama’s re-election on November 6. It reportedly killed Abdul Rehman al-Zaman Yemeni, described as an al Qaeda commander, along with up to three others.

Although the pace of strikes has slowed considerably this year, CIA attacks have struck Pakistan’s tribal areas on average once every five days during Obama’s first term – six times more than under George W Bush. Here, we look at the key moments of Obama’s drone campaign.

Up to date Statistics from the Bureau of investigative journalism.

http://uruknet.info/?p=m93206&hd=&size=1&l=e

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Jonny,
Your defense of this disgusts me personally. You cheer on a President who does this. Is there a limit on the actual number of murdered children when you would stop supporting this?

Noun 1. crocodile tears - a hypocritical display of sorrow; false or insincere weeping; "the secretaries wept crocodile tears over the manager's dilemma"; "politicians shed crocodile tears over the plight of the unemployed"

KamiKazi

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Sleep tight in your nice, comfortable home.

And what exactly are you doing to stop the US using drones?

It must be something pretty damn impressive judging by what I've quoted!

Be like Nutella

IMO I don't think anyone here is saying that drones are brilliant and it's great that they kill innocent civilians or anything like that. Some people simply view their use as a logical progression... they're a physically smart weapon so use them to kill would-be terrorists, and if some civilians die then so be it seems to be the opinion of some people here and that's their prerogative.

I don't agree that they help anything to be honest and there are genuine democratic issues that should be raised loudly in congress about the control, oversight and accountability of these 300 drone strikes carried out by CIA in Pakistan. I genuinely think if every Congressman knew the whole story about the drone strikes that they would kick up murder about it. There has been a concerted and provable effort to circumvent democracy since drones first hit Pakistan in July 2004. Obama had very few options to choose from in this GWOT when he came into office and the drone strike option was his least worst.... he thought. He HAD to be seen as doing something hardball on the GWOT front... it was a politically motivated decision... which is just a reality as we know war doesn't happen in a vacuum - business and politics continue on no matter what's going on... that don't make it right though but it is a reality. The Drone War will turn out to be a major error and the US will suffer for it on many fronts. Just as they did and continue to do for lying-themselves into war in 2003. Straight forward defensive intelligence is what the CIA should be doing... not becoming a quasi paramilitary group carrying out many hundreds of pre-emptive assassinations in conjunction with the USAF, DOD and SOCOM in a purposefully designed structure which allows denial of action and the ability to keep things like legal justifications hidden from democratic scrutiny. Anyone disagree with any points speak up.

Torakx

I think the people making the decisions to go to war will not be held responsible anyway.
If anything, the buck(and consequences) will be passed to the general public or some fallguy in government.

And if the dust settles a few years down the road, "they" will always have Ron Paul to be the savior as a presidential candidate, who has always been the voice of reason.
All the angles are covered, including control of the masses thoughts on the matter.

If you could do something, what could you do at this stage? Apart from trying to inform other people.
Which isnt enough, when competing with the mass media's propoganda.

Americans could be fighting for their freedom, all the way to heavens gates and still think they are in for a good cause.
Priority number one in my oppinion for any sort of turn around, is to immediately take out the propoganda machines.

I learn so much more about the world from Russia Todays propoganda simply because its a contrast to the western news.
I get both bad stories which i hope helps to get an average of the reality.

Be like Nutella

Torakx wrote: »

I learn so much more about the world from Russia Todays propoganda simply because its a contrast to the western news.
I get both bad stories which i hope helps to get an average of the reality.

well I don't go in for all the criticism of RT to be honest - they do SOME good genuine stuff and they give voice to some guys who don't get near main stream media who should (and some that shouldn't anyway:)... but I take your point - they fling out propaganda as much as anyone.. just from an anti-US-establishment perspective. Anyway they have super hot journalists and anchor women : )

Jonny7

Russia Today operate very much like Fox News in that they have a strong agenda.

Russian Press freedom is not exactly high and does not share the same independence from political influence, censorship, etc than it's counterparts in, for example, Scandinavian countries (which score among the highest in press freedom index's)

Russia today is essentially state-controlled, reporting in a foreign language, a mouthpiece for the Kremlin. Simply put, it was set up with the goal of being critical and cynical of the West, a counter to what was seen as "Western" dominated world news. Hence most of it's stories purposefully take that angle.

The language and tone it uses is not as strong or obvious as Press TV (it's Iranian counterpart), but it's "experts", guest, analysis, debate are all generally from the same side of the coin, little attempt at genuine objectivity.

Also the idea that 'alternative' news sites offer up news that is somehow subdued or censored in the West is a bit weak. Obviously I can't speak for them all and some do touch on subjects that may be unreported, however, the majority of these alternative news outlets appear to be entirely free from regulatory bodies, independent watchdogs, ethical codes and practices - and as such anyone who can hold a camera is a "reporter" and anyone with an internet connection can host their own "news" channel.

In my experience from this forum and others, some are less interested in the truth and more interested in what they want to hear. Russia Today and Press TV often provide this in regards overly critical stories of "the corrupt evil West", neatly packaged, the comfort of English anchors on a professional setup that mimicks the thousands of "mainstream" outlets, from Germany, to Singapore, to Canada.

Be like Nutella

Very well put Johnny... but too generalized without example. But if we get into you producing examples and me producing counter examples we'll be here all week : )

I have seen tripey 'anti-American Gov' RT segments and shows.. but I have also seen quite a few very informative forum style conversations had on RT where individuals such as James Bamford are given a chance to speak up about complex issues and stories such as Stellar Wind and cases like the James Risen situation where so called mainstream channels like CNN are too scared to get into these things. I have seen Philip Alston on RT given a chance to speak up about drones and say what he wants whereas it's very hard to imagine MSNBC giving airtime to such anti-obama policy positions. RT is paid for by the Russian Gov as far as I know and has the third largest audience in international news outside of BBC affiliated world news channels. Everything should be judged on its own merit, each show, each journalist... and in the case of RT it is certainly not a case of anybody with a camera is a journalist. The Aylona show is one to check out if you are across the board cynical about RT and everything it does. Watch a couple eps of her show and you'll see she certainly knows her sh1t and gives voice to a lot of guys who wouldn't be 'risked' by so called mainstream media channels. I am not against all things mainstream - BBC have done amazing exposes on things over the years and CNN too in fact my fav most respected piece this year is an Amonpour piece on Iran where she presents how little evidence there actually is for Iran going for the bomb... a piece which I think everyone interested should see... and she is deffo mainstream. I also never miss GPS on Sundays with Fareed Zakaria and I regard him as the single most knowledgeable presenter on news tv in the world... a centrist who isn't afraid to state his not-always pro-establishment positions from a position of intelligent logical critical thought. His round table forums are extremely informative. But saying all that mainstream news tv is simply big business on the whole and as such has controlling interests which do not allow, and haven't for many decades, untainted news to be spread. Fox is cak we all hopefully agree on that - but even Fox has done SOME good stuff and does form time to time. MSNBC is sickeningly pro Obama and CNN is all about the theater of news which dissolves into a laughable farce so often.

To generalize is to ignore the nuance.... most things aren't black'n'white - anyone here who thinks all news on all mainstream channels is biased and or controlled is mental obviously there is good stuff everywhere you just have to find it. Nothing wrong with a little RT IF you keep your critical mind open.... but it is something that was borne from a Russian anti-west position.... and they have hottt presenters...again.

Jonny7

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Very well put Johnny... but too generalized without example. But if we get into you producing examples and me producing counter examples we'll be here all week : )

thanks but don't get me started on Russia Today reporters, spent half of last year on the subject. Basically; you're an activist who doesn't like America? speak English? photogenic? here have a mic you're our war correspondent.

Be like Nutella

I wouldn't go that far on RT but fair enough. Thing is though... it's all hypocritical in nature ya know... this kind of debate. See, once you are already A MAINSTREAM CHANNEL then anyone who gives a different perspective is considered fringe, cooky or even propaganda, leftist, socialist or in this case - Russian haha... but seriously it is hard to be taken seriously when trying to present news that is unbiased and unaffected by corporate and political interests which in terms of advertising in the case of large US channels - is one and the same thing. News doesn't happen in a vacuum just as war doesn't - there has and always be some forms of 'leaning' happening TO channels. Only recently a couple of Fox anchors left Fox live on TV saying they lost ed control and balance etc etc.. The nature of the business has also changed and paper media is dying a death and content has gone online and as you say those with a camera become quasi journalists. That's the nature of the transition we're living in BUT it's not all bad. As I said be critical of everything and judge each piece on its own merit and check up things like I do all the time.... Especially when I agree or am taken by a piece - first thing I'll do is google the sh1t out of it and wiki and articles and vids and go out of my way to find the other side of the story... if it's MSNBC - go to Fox - if it's pro Israel go to ALJ and visa versa.. BUT what I have a problem with is those (and I'm not saying you're one) who would state unequivocal positions on things who would never look beyond their Time mag or their Irish Times because there is no single media outlet at this point who has the expertize or experience or span or quality or proven track record in providing good journalism across the world of news... the whole spectrum. I'll read a Startfor piece because I know they know their military and strategic sh1t even though I hate them... I just have to keep my filter switched on.

End of the day - if you want to really know about and the understand the things goin on in the world like the Drone Strikes then you have to mix up your sources and go left and right and center or you can end up being one of these 'shout with fingers in your ears' people... and they don't help jack sh1t... I know because when I was younger I was probably one of them.

There are deffo poor quality quasi presenter/journalists (who are hot again:) on RT but there are decent ones as well who have guests and talk about subjects that CNN/Fox/MSNBC would not... issues which deserve a voice whether or not its emanating from an anti-US Russia funded internet news channel or not. I won't be getting anything like all of my news from them so I won't ever be a victim of their propaganda IF that is indeed what they are set up to do these days. And remember, to humor the idea that RT is a prop machine is not so dissimilar to humoring the premise that Fox 'ACTS' as a voice of the Republican Establishment... or am I wrong?

Torakx

Now you know why i stated both RT and our own media as propoganda.
Beats arguing the obvious.
There are stories on both sides and all media outlets that are reliable and biased.
Take them all with a pinch of salt.
Even though i prefer RT news for obvious reasons, i am aware they have an agenda.
If there is money behind it theres an agenda.
But just becuase they dont like the west, does not mean also they are making up stories.
So its hit and miss with all news outlets imo.

Jonny7

Torakx wrote: »

Take them all with a pinch of salt.

I strongly disagree. Outlet's differ hugely on levels of integrity, impartiality, accountability, professionalism, scope, track-record, etc.

Spread-betting is the best, using multiple sources. If someone decides to source their news only from RT, then it's probably not a good idea. However if they get their news from, for example, Der Spiegl, the Telegraph, RTE, Euronews and RT then they should have a much more accurate picture.

Torakx

Jonny7 wrote: »

I strongly disagree. Outlet's differ hugely on levels of integrity, impartiality, accountability, professionalism, scope, track-record, etc.

Spread-betting is the best, using multiple sources. If someone decides to source their news only from RT, then it's probably not a good idea. However if they get their news from, for example, Der Spiegl, the Telegraph, RTE, Euronews and RT then they should have a much more accurate picture.

Thats how i see it too.
If you took the same news stories from different outlets, sometimes you get slightly different versions.So in that respect i have to take them all "with a pinch of salt".

I feel its more reliable to average it out and from there seek information to confirm or disregard theories.

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

Noun 1. crocodile tears - a hypocritical display of sorrow; false or insincere weeping; "the secretaries wept crocodile tears over the manager's dilemma"; "politicians shed crocodile tears over the plight of the unemployed"

Brilliant.

Now any chance of answering the question?

"Is there a limit on the actual number of murdered children when you would stop supporting this?"

Brown Bomber

KamiKazi wrote: »

And what exactly are you doing to stop the US using drones?

It must be something pretty damn impressive judging by what I've quoted!

???

KamiKazi

Brown Bomber wrote: »

???

Nothing then.

Just as I thought

Brown Bomber

KamiKazi wrote: »

Nothing then.

Just as I thought

I'm sorry. You're not making any sense to me. Could you try being a little more specific in what it is you are trying to say.

Run_to_da_hills

"Former US President Jimmy Carter has slammed American assassination drone strikes in other countries, saying that killing civilians in such attacks would in fact nurture terrorism.

“I personally think we do more harm than good by having our drones attack some potential terrorists who have not been tried or proven that they are guilty,” Carter said in an interview with Russia Today.

“But in the meantime, the drone attacks also kill women and children, sometimes in weddings… so this is the kind of thing we should correct,” he added.

Carter, who served as US president from 1976 to 1980, also criticized incumbent American policy makers for violating the country’s “long-standing policy” of “preserving the privacy of US citizens.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/article-78826-Former-US-president-slams-drone-attacks

KamiKazi

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm sorry. You're not making any sense to me. Could you try being a little more specific in what it is you are trying to say.

It's pretty clear, but I'll break it down even further as you're clearly having difficulties here.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Sleep tight in your nice, comfortable home.

With the level of smug condescension in this post, you must be doing some pretty incredible work in the battle to stop the US drone attacks.

Please, enlighten me on what you do to allow you to make such a smug, self-righteous comment. I'm afraid posting on Boards.ie about the matter does not count.

Or are you merely saying that you don't sleep tight in your nice, comfortable home?

Brown Bomber

KamiKazi wrote: »

It's pretty clear, but I'll break it down even further as you're clearly having difficulties here.



With the level of smug condescension in this post, you must be doing some pretty incredible work in the battle to stop the US drone attacks.

Please, enlighten me on what you do to allow you to make such a smug, self-righteous comment. I'm afraid posting on Boards.ie about the matter does not count.

Or are you merely saying that you don't sleep tight in your nice, comfortable home?

I still have no idea what you are talking about. I will say that my statement that you seem to have a problem with for some reason is perfectly valid. Jonny is cheering on the US President's terrorism of the Pashtun people in Pakistan from the comfort of his comfortable and secure home and this does disgust me.

I suggest you read this report from NYU/Stanford and try to put yourself in their position and get back to me.
http://livingunderdrones.org/report/

Mental Health Impacts of Drone Strikes and the Presence of Drones

One of the few accounts of living under drones ever published in the US came from a former New York Times journalist who was kidnapped by the Taliban for months in FATA.[472] In his account, David Rohde described both the fear the drones inspired among his captors, as well as among ordinary civilians: “The drones were terrifying. From the ground, it is impossible to determine who or what they are tracking as they circle overhead. The buzz of a distant propeller is a constant reminder of imminent death.”[473] Describing the experience of living under drones as ‘hell on earth’, Rohde explained that even in the areas where strikes were less frequent, the people living there still feared for their lives.[474]

Community members, mental health professionals, and journalists interviewed for this report described how the constant presence of US drones overhead leads to substantial levels of fear and stress in the civilian communities below.[475] One man described the reaction to the sound of the drones as “a wave of terror” coming over the community. “Children, grown-up people, women, they are terrified. . . . They scream in terror.”[476] Interviewees described the experience of living under constant surveillance as harrowing. In the words of one interviewee: “God knows whether they’ll strike us again or not. But they’re always surveying us, they’re always over us, and you never know when they’re going to strike and attack.”[477]

Another interviewee who lost both his legs in a drone attack said that “[e]veryone is scared all the time. When we’re sitting together to have a meeting, we’re scared there might be a strike. When you can hear the drone circling in the sky, you think it might strike you. We’re always scared. We always have this fear in our head.”[478]

A Pakistani psychiatrist, who has treated patients presenting symptoms he attributed to experience with or fear of drones, explained that pervasive worry about future trauma is emblematic of “anticipatory anxiety,”[479] common in conflict zones.[480] Heexplained that the Waziris he has treated who suffer from anticipatory anxiety are constantly worrying, “‘when is the next drone attack going to happen? When they hear drone sounds, they run around looking for shelter.”[481]

Another mental health professional who works with drone victims concluded that his patients’ stress symptoms are largely attributable to their belief that “[t]hey could be attacked at any time.”[482]
Uncontrollability—a core element of anticipatory anxiety—emerged as one of the most common themes raised by interviewees. Haroon Quddoos, a taxi driver who survived a first strike on his car, only to be injured moments later by a second missile that hit him while he was running from the burning car, explained:

We are always thinking that it is either going to attack our homes or whatever we do. It’s going to strike us; it’s going to attack us . . . . No matter what we are doing, that fear is always inculcated in us. Because whether we are driving a car, or we are working on a farm, or we are sitting home playing . . . cards–no matter what we are doing we are always thinking the drone will strike us. So we are scared to do anything, no matter what.[483]

Interviewees indicated that their own powerlessness to minimize their exposure to strikes compounded their emotional and psychological stress. “We are scared. We are worried. The worst thing is that we cannot find a way to do anything about it. We feel helpless.”[484] Ahmed Jan summarized the impact: “Before the drone attacks, it was as if everyone was young. After the drone attacks, it is as if everyone is ill. Every person is afraid of the drones.”[485] One mother who spoke with us stated that, although she had herself never seen a strike, when she heard a drone fly overhead, she became terrified. “Because of the terror, we shut our eyes, hide under our scarves, put our hands over our ears.”[486] When asked why, she said, “Why would we not be scared?”[487]

A humanitarian worker who had worked in areas affected by drones stated that although far safer than others in Waziristan, even he felt constant fear:
Do you remember 9/11? Do you remember what it felt like right after? I was in New York on 9/11. I remember people crying in the streets. People were afraid about what might happen next. People didn’t know if there would be another attack. There was tension in the air. This is what it is like. It is a continuous tension, a feeling of continuous uneasiness. We are scared. You wake up with a start to every noise.[488]

In addition to feeling fear, those who live under drones–and particularly interviewees who survived or witnessed strikes–described common symptoms of anticipatory anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. Interviewees described emotional breakdowns,[489] running indoors or hiding when drones appear above,[490] fainting,[491] nightmares and other intrusive thoughts,[492] hyper startled reactions to loud noises,[493] outbursts of anger or irritability,[494] and loss of appetite and other physical symptoms.[495] Interviewees also reported suffering from insomnia and other sleep disturbances,[496] which medical health professionals in Pakistan stated were prevalent.[497] A father of three said, “drones are always on my mind. It makes it difficult to sleep. They are like a mosquito. Even when you don’t see them, you can hear them, you know they are there.”[498] According to a strike survivor, “When the drone is moving, people cannot sleep properly or can’t rest properly. They are always scared of the drones.”[499]

Saeed Yayha, a day laborer who was injured from flying shrapnel in the March 17, 2011 jirga attack and must now rely on charity to survive, said:
I can’t sleep at night because when the drones are there . . . I hear them making that sound, that noise. The drones are all over my brain, I can’t sleep. When I hear the drones making that drone sound, I just turn on the light and sit there looking at the light. Whenever the drones are hovering over us, it just makes me so scared.[500]
Akhunzada Chitan, a parliamentarian who occasionally travels to his family home in Waziristan reported that people there “often complain that they wake up in the middle of the night screaming because they are hallucinating about drones.”[501]

Interviewees also reported a loss of appetite as a result of the anxiety they feel when drones are overhead. Ajmal Bashir, an elderly man who has lost both relatives and friends to strikes, said that “every person—women, children, elders—they are all frightened and afraid of the drones . . . [W]hen [drones] are flying, they don’t like to eat anything . . . because they are too afraid of the drones.”[502] Another man explained that “We don’t eat properly on those days [when strikes occur] because we know an innocent Muslim was killed. We are all unhappy and afraid.”[503]

Several Pakistani medical and mental health professionals told us that they have seen a number of physical manifestations of stress in their Waziri patients.[504] Ateeq Razzaq and Sulayman Afraz, both psychiatrists, attributed the phenomenon in part to Pashtun cultural norms that discourage the expression of emotional or psychological distress.[505] “People are proud,” Razzaq explained to us, “and it is difficult for them to express their emotions. They have to show that they are strong people.”[506] Reluctant to admit that they are mentally or emotionally distressed, the patients instead “express their emotional ill health through their body symptoms,” resulting in what Afraz called “hysterical reactions,” or “physical symptoms without a real [organic] basis, such as aches, and pains, vomiting, etcetera.”[507]

The mental health professionals with whom we spoke told us that when they treat a Waziri patient complaining of generic physical symptoms, such as body pain or “headaches, backaches, respiratory distress, and indigestion,” they attempt to determine whether the patient has been through a traumatic experience. It is through this questioning that they have uncovered that some of their patients had experienced drones, or lost a relative in a drone strike.[508]

Mental health professionals we spoke with in Pakistan also said that they had seen numerous cases of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)[509] among their patients from Waziristan related to exposure to drone strikes and the constant presence of drones.[510] For example, one psychiatrist described a female patient of his who:
was having shaking fits, she was screaming and crying . . . . I was guessing there might be some stress . . . then I [discovered] there was a drone attack and she had observed it. It happened just near her home. She had witnessed a home being destroyed–it was just a nearby home, [her] neighbor’s.[511]

Interviewees also described the impacts on children.[512] One man said of his young niece and nephew that “[t]hey really hate the drones when they are flying. It makes the children very angry.”[513] Aftab Gul Ali, who looks after his grandson and three granddaughters, stated that children, even when far away from strikes, are “badly affected.”[514] Hisham Abrar, who had to collect his cousin’s body after he was killed in a drone strike, stated:

When [children] hear the drones, they get really scared, and they can hear them all the time so they’re always fearful that the drone is going to attack them. . . ecause of the noise, we’re psychologically disturbed—women, men, and children. . . Twenty-four hours, [a] person is in stress and there is pain in his head.[515]

Noor Behram, a Waziri journalist who investigates and photographs drone strike sites, noted the fear in children: “if you bang a door, they’ll scream and drop like something bad is going to happen.”[516] A Pakistani mental health professional shared his worries about the long-term ramifications of such psychological trauma on children:

The biggest concern I have as a [mental health professional] is that when the children grow up, the kinds of images they will have with them, it is going to have a lot of consequences. You can imagine the impact it has on personality development. People who have experienced such things, they don’t trust people; they have anger, desire for revenge . . . So when you have these young boys and girls growing up with these impressions, it causes permanent scarring and damage.[517]

The small number of trained mental health professionals[518] and lack of health infrastructure in North Waziristan exacerbates the symptoms and illnesses described here.[519] Several interviewees provided a troubling glimpse of the methods some communities turn to in order to deal with mental illness in the absence of adequate alternatives. One man said that “some people have been tied in their houses because of their mental state.”[520] A Waziri from Datta Khel—which has been hit by drone strikes over three dozen times in the last three years alone[521]—said that a number of individuals “have lost their mental balance . . . are just locked in a room. Just like you lock people in prison, they are locked in a room.”[522] Some of those interviewed reported that, to deal with their symptoms, they were able to obtain anti-anxiety medications and anti-depressants.[523] One Waziri man who lost his son in a drone strike explained that people take tranquilizers to “save them from the terror of the drones.”[524] Umar Ashraf obtained a prescription for Lexotanil to treat “the mental issues I was facing,” and said that taking the medicine makes him feel better.

[525] Saeed Yayha, however, said that the prescription the doctors gave him to deal with “the pressure in his head” does not work for him;[526] “t just soothes me for half an hour but it does not last very long.”[527]

KamiKazi

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I still have no idea what you are talking about. I will say that my statement that you seem to have a problem with for some reason is perfectly valid. Jonny is cheering on the US President's terrorism of the Pashtun people in Pakistan from the comfort of his comfortable and secure home and this does disgust me.

I suggest you read this report from NYU/Stanford and try to put yourself in their position and get back to me.
http://livingunderdrones.org/report/

You still haven't answered my questions.

Brown Bomber

KamiKazi wrote: »

You still haven't answered my questions.

I have actually.

Your comments on the Obama-sanctioned-terrorism that terrorises innocent civilians of Pakistan?

Contrast these conditions with your own tonight and hopefully you will finally see my point. These people are as innocent as you or I.

In addition to feeling fear, those who live under drones–and particularly interviewees who survived or witnessed strikes–described common symptoms of anticipatory anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. Interviewees described emotional breakdowns,[489] running indoors or hiding when drones appear above,[490] fainting,[491] nightmares and other intrusive thoughts,[492] hyper startled reactions to loud noises,[493] outbursts of anger or irritability,[494] and loss of appetite and other physical symptoms.[495] Interviewees also reported suffering from insomnia and other sleep disturbances,[496] which medical health professionals in Pakistan stated were prevalent.[497] A father of three said, “drones are always on my mind. It makes it difficult to sleep. They are like a mosquito. Even when you don’t see them, you can hear them, you know they are there.”[498] According to a strike survivor, “When the drone is moving, people cannot sleep properly or can’t rest properly. They are always scared of the drones.”[499]

Saeed Yayha, a day laborer who was injured from flying shrapnel in the March 17, 2011 jirga attack and must now rely on charity to survive, said:
I can’t sleep at night because when the drones are there . . . I hear them making that sound, that noise. The drones are all over my brain, I can’t sleep. When I hear the drones making that drone sound, I just turn on the light and sit there looking at the light. Whenever the drones are hovering over us, it just makes me so scared.[500]
Akhunzada Chitan, a parliamentarian who occasionally travels to his family home in Waziristan reported that people there “often complain that they wake up in the middle of the night screaming because they are hallucinating about drone

And all this is putting to one side the abject failure of the so-called war on terror. There are more "terrorists" now than when the "war" began - but maybe we can kill every single one on earth and live happily ever after in a fairytale world where killing peoples family members, destroying their livelihoods, homes, villages and nations doesn't lead to a desire for revenge.

KamiKazi

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I have actually.

You haven't, you must have studied at the Run_to_da_hill's School of Question Avoidance.

Point 1:

KamiKazi wrote: »

Please, enlighten me on what you do to allow you to make such a smug, self-righteous comment. I'm afraid posting on Boards.ie about the matter does not count.

Point 2:

KamiKazi wrote: »

Or are you merely saying that you don't sleep tight in your nice, comfortable home?

Posting irrelevant articles that have nothing to do with my question does not answer it, so I'll ask you again:

What are you doing to stop the usage of US drones?

It's a simple question.

Brown Bomber

KamiKazi wrote: »

You haven't, you must have studied at the Run_to_da_hill's School of Question Avoidance.

Ad-hom. Brilliant.

KamiKazi wrote: »

Point 1:

With respect is based on a nonsensensical conflation by you of two unrelated points which I've already addressed.

Jonny is cheering on the US President's terrorism of the Pashtun people in Pakistan from the comfort of his comfortable and secure home and this does disgust me.

KamiKazi wrote: »

Point 2:

Is not worthy of a response as what I have or have not done in entirely irrelevant to the position I hold.

KamiKazi wrote: »

Posting irrelevant articles that have nothing to do with my question does not answer it, so I'll ask you again:

What are you doing to stop the usage of US drones?

It's a simple question.

Your questions are to be frank stupid and irrelevant. What is actually relevant to my point is the report detailing the constant trauma and terrorism experienced by the Pashtuns due to the drone attacks. Your efforts to avoid this speaks volumes.

KamiKazi

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Ad-hom. Brilliant.

With respect is based on a nonsensensical conflation by you of two unrelated points which I've already addressed.




Is not worthy of a response as what I have or have not done in entirely irrelevant to the position I hold.


Your questions are to be frank stupid and irrelevant. What is actually relevant to my point is the report detailing the constant trauma and terrorism experienced by the Pashtuns due to the drone attacks. Your efforts to avoid this speaks volumes.

That's a really, really long way of saying 'Nothing'.

JustinDee

Another excellent Jane Corbin report last night, this time on the subject of drones flying in Pakistani airspace. All the Pakistani government has to do is close airpspace to them. It won't however, for the simple reason that Pakistan makes avail of drone air patrols as much as the big bad boyos in the West.

Jonny7

JustinDee wrote: »

Another excellent Jane Corbin report last night, this time on the subject of drones flying in Pakistani airspace. All the Pakistani government has to do is close airpspace to them. It won't however, for the simple reason that Pakistan makes avail of drone air patrols as much as the big bad boyos in the West.

An important tool to combat the various militias and a handy populist scapegoat.

Brown Bomber

KamiKazi wrote: »

That's a really, really long way of saying 'Nothing'.

On the contrary. it is an explanation of why your questions were meaningless and/or answered.

You on the other hand have yet to comment on the trauma caused to innocent civilians by US-sanctioned terrorism. Why is that?

KamiKazi

Brown Bomber wrote: »

On the contrary. it is an explanation of why your questions were meaningless and/or answered.

Really? I must have missed it. Please repeat for me, what is it you do to stop the usage of US drones?

It is a simple, one line question. Stop dodging the question and give an honest answer.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You on the other hand have yet to comment on the trauma caused to innocent civilians by US-sanctioned terrorism. Why is that?

I never once showed my intention to comment on the trauma caused by "US-sanctioned terrorism". Seeing as how you're pulling topics out of the air, may I suggest moving on to the quality of professional badminton players in post-soviet Russia perhaps?

Brown Bomber

KamiKazi wrote: »

Really? I must have missed it. Please repeat for me, what is it you do to stop the usage of US drones?

It is a simple, one line question. Stop dodging the question and give an honest answer.

I will, gladly, if you can satisfactorily explain to me why it is relevant to me being disgusted by those living in the first world cheering on the state-sponsored terrorism of those in the third world. Otherwise there is no reason to answer.

KamiKazi wrote: »

I never once showed my intention to comment on the trauma caused by "US-sanctioned terrorism"

Then I suggest you stop wasting my time with inane questions. As I've said your silence speaks volumes.

What exactly is your "intention"?

KamiKazi wrote: »

Seeing as how you're pulling topics out of the air,

This is clearly not the case. The human impact of the drone war is obviously not "pulling topics out of the air". I'm not even going to bother explaining that.

KamiKazi wrote: »

may I suggest moving on to the quality of professional badminton players in post-soviet Russia perhaps?

May I suggest that you try to remember that these innocent people being terrorised are your equal in every sense.

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

An important tool to combat the various militias and a handy populist scapegoat.

Have you come up with your own personal limit of how many murderered children is too many for you yet?

Evidently it is not hundreds. Is it thousands? Tens of thousands? More? Is there a limit?

Run_to_da_hills

I would well believe that this could be the very terror tool of the up and coming Antichrist Barack Obama considering its frightening capabilities. It would be the ideal tool for such man to be able to carry out virtually limitless unlawful assassination without having to land and re arm itself.

It would also not surprise me if this weapon will be used on the domestic scene. more than likely he will test this first in Pakistan and other illegally occupied countries before he will try it at home.



The next generation of military drones, unveiled by a leading US manufacturer, will not just carry a limited supply of rockets – but will likely be fitted with an ultra-light laser, capable of repeatedly destroying objects at the speed of light.

“It would give us an unlimited magazine,” a person close to the High Energy Liquid Laser Area Defense System (HELLADS) program told Time magazine.
Over the past four years, the Defense Advance Research Project Agency (DARPA) has given contractor General Atomics over $60 million to develop and then scale HELLADS – a powerful 150 kW ray with a difference.

Current lasers of that strength – enough to destroy an incoming rocket or plane – are bulky, which means they can only be placed on stationary defense systems.

HELLADS, which DARPA says is in the “final development stage,” is radically lighter. It will weigh only 750 kilograms – less than a very small car.
This vastly opens up its potential uses. A key application of HELLADS is in the new generation of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), better known as drones.

http://rt.com/news/hellads-drone-predator-darpa-762/

KamiKazi

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I will, gladly, if you can satisfactorily explain to me why it is relevant

It is relevant because when you say something like this:

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Sleep tight in your nice, comfortable home.

It gives the impression that you are doing something about the issue at hand, unlike whoever that post was aimed at.

So what are you doing about the issue at hand?

MadYaker

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

It would also not surprise me if this weapon will be used on the domestic scene.

It seems there is nothing that would surprise you. Id say if enda kenny and michael noonan pulled of their heads revealing that of a big scaly lizard on the 6 o clock news and then blasted into space in a space ship hidden under leinster house you'd be sitting there in front of the tv thinking to yourself, "i f*cking new it".

Seriously though, you can't honestly believe that photo is real? Look at it. Its not a drone, it has a cockpit ffs! And the laser coming out the bottom is so badly photoshopped its not even funny. A 12 year old could reproduce that. Why are you bringing all this sh!te about Obama being the anti christ and using star trek technology on his own people into a good and sensible debate about drone strikes? I honestly have no idea how you are not banned for trolling.

Run_to_da_hills

MadYaker wrote: »

It seems there is nothing that would surprise you. Id say if enda kenny and michael noonan pulled of their heads revealing that of a big scaly lizard on the 6 o clock news and then blasted into space in a space ship hidden under leinster house you'd be sitting there in front of the tv thinking to yourself, "i f*cking new it".

Seriously though, you can't honestly believe that photo is real? Look at it. Its not a drone, it has a cockpit ffs! And the laser coming out the bottom is so badly photoshopped its not even funny. A 12 year old could reproduce that. Why are you bringing all this sh!te about Obama being the anti christ and using star trek technology on his own people into a good and sensible debate about drone strikes? I honestly have no idea how you are not banned for trolling.

Its funny again,

A 12 year old would also read the link provided instead of just looking at the pictures. .

If you cared to read the passage below the image in the link that I provided.:rolleyes:

http://rt.com/news/hellads-drone-predator-darpa-762/



Quoting RT. HELLADS in action (Image from www.darpa.mil)