backtop


Print 142 comment(s) - last by colonelclaw.. on Sep 13 at 8:31 AM


  (Source: Army Technology)
Hunter UAV scores two kills in Iraq

DailyTech has discussed unmanned military vehicles in great detail over the past year. We covered everything from the iRobot PakBot which can detect enemy gunfire to drones which can loiter in the air for hours surveying the battlefield.

The official website for the Multi-National Force in Iraq is reporting that a Hunter MQ-5B/C unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) made its first kill on September 1. A scout weapons team (SWT) was performing surveillance when two enemy combatants were discovered.

The enemy combatants were suspected of planting improvised explosive device (IEDs) on a roadway, so air support was requested by the SWT. A Hunter UAV was sent to the location where it dropped a precision bomb on the two suspects. Both were killed by the blast.

"It’s very humbling to know that we have set an Army historical mark in having the first successful launch in combat from an Army weaponized UAV," said Capt. Raymond Fields of the Unmanned Aerial Surveillance Company. "This would not be possible without my Soldiers and civilians working hard day in and day out in Iraq to accomplish this feat."

"This accomplishment adds a precise and discriminate means for our Army to successfully engage the enemy in counterinsurgency warfare," remarked Col. A.T. Ball of the 25th Combat Aviation Brigade.

The MQ-5B/C is a fixed-wing, twin tail-boom aircraft which is powered by two Northrop Grumman diesel engines. The aircraft can stay aloft for 15 hours and climb to a maximum of 20,000 feet. The MQ-5B/C can carry up to 260 pounds of ammunition split between two external hard points.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Love it
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/11/2007 10:00:44 AM , Rating: 3
I do love all the advances in military tech during war times. One thing that can be said about war is that it advances technology faster than anything else. Nothing like kill or be killed to get the tech rolling fast.

Keep 'em coming!




RE: Love it
By Bioniccrackmonk on 9/11/2007 10:15:02 AM , Rating: 5
Necessity is the mother of all inventions.


RE: Love it
By Schadenfroh on 9/11/2007 10:34:24 AM , Rating: 5
I agree, no doubt that the technology of war is always modern. If only the tactics advanced as quickly as the technology.


RE: Love it
By Gul Westfale on 9/11/07, Rating: -1
RE: Love it
By michal1980 on 9/11/2007 10:46:38 AM , Rating: 5
i'm glad it worked, if it helped save american lives. good.

I think our troops should have access to any tech we create that can help them stay alive.

War is not pretty. nor should it be.


RE: Love it
By cpeter38 on 9/11/2007 12:54:20 PM , Rating: 2
HMMM!! Add to your rating or tell you I approve - tough choice if the consequences were higher ...

Glad to see you giving useful input - please keep posting like this !!!


RE: Love it
By SandmanWN on 9/11/2007 10:51:28 AM , Rating: 5
YES! Lets celebrate the fact that two more idiots that should be working to rebuild their pathetic country got what they deserved today when they attempted to set up an explosive device on a public road that could have very well cost the lives of yet another school bus full of children.

STFU you idiot.


RE: Love it
By TomZ on 9/11/2007 11:00:43 AM , Rating: 3
Sadly, the people who are building and deploing IEDs do feel like they are doing the right thing to rebuild their country. I'm not defending them, I'm just pointing out how warped the situation is.


RE: Love it
By fleshconsumed on 9/11/07, Rating: -1
RE: Love it
By fleshconsumed on 9/11/2007 11:25:38 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, replied to the wrong post, ignore this one.

I'll repost the reply into the correct thread.


RE: Love it
By aeroengineer1 on 9/11/2007 12:52:46 PM , Rating: 3
Secondaries = confirmed :)


RE: Love it
By SandmanWN on 9/11/2007 12:59:24 PM , Rating: 5
Seems like you are the one with the logic problem.

The real Key quotes are:
"A scout weapons team from 2nd Battalion, 25th Aviation Regiment, 25th Combat Aviation Brigade, observed the two unknown enemy fighters in a tactical overwatch near the roadside."


RE: Love it
By omnicronx on 9/11/07, Rating: -1
RE: Love it
By TomZ on 9/11/2007 12:07:18 PM , Rating: 3
I don't know what you mean by that. Bush asked Congress for authorization, which was given, and then the U.S. and allies started a huge military undertaking in Iraq. Sounds like war to me.


RE: Love it
By rushfan2006 on 9/11/2007 12:41:36 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly.

"War" is a political classification - the country is in a "war" whenever the Federal government says its at war. More specifically when Congress declares its a war.

There is no other determining factor for War -- congress declared "war" on some small obscure island in the Pacific who's population consists only of farmers and they had no military or police -- that would still a "war".


RE: Love it
By SandmanWN on 9/11/2007 11:46:59 AM , Rating: 5
Don't fool yourself. These people could care less about anything other than the US military leaving so their little group of thugs can go back to ruling the streets with their armed militias and strangling the voice of the local people while they rape them of every penny in their pockets.

There is nothing warped about the situation. The people of Iraq need to drop the AK47's and get back to work. Two seconds after this happens the US leaves their country with a huge sigh of relief.


RE: Love it
By tyildirim on 9/11/07, Rating: -1
RE: Love it
By SandmanWN on 9/11/2007 3:11:38 PM , Rating: 3
The sad part is you probably feel smarter for saying that.

The laughable part is that for all the clever debate that has gone on here today... that was the best you could do.


RE: Love it
By mikeyD95125 on 9/12/2007 12:10:18 AM , Rating: 1
I don't know what country you are from, but i'm sure anyone could make some kind of negative stereo-typical statement about yours, and anyones country. It's sad that the world is full of good people, yes, even in america. So if you make another post in this thread or any other political thread make it intelligent and worth reading please.


RE: Love it
By djtodd on 9/11/2007 10:58:42 AM , Rating: 2
While I won't celebrate the fact that two people were killed, I agree with the others who replied to yet another America bashing post. If it were your brother, sister, or child over there in danger you'd be damn glad to see this tech too.

So go piss and moan about how evil and terrible America is somewhere else, cause we all know we're the only ones researchiing uav's...right.


RE: Love it
By Gul Westfale on 9/11/07, Rating: -1
RE: Love it
By djtodd on 9/11/07, Rating: -1
RE: Love it
By Misty Dingos on 9/11/2007 11:44:51 AM , Rating: 4
The vast majority of Americans that refuse to inform themselves of the reality of the day. Those of us that are not burying our heads in the sand or somewhere else realize that being at war is not a matter of opinion.

That in this case, no matter what the original reason, Iraq is now a front on the Global War On Terrorism. That the racist, religious fanatics that are the terrorists will not stop until we kill them or imprison them. We realize that it was an enormous mistake for Bill Clinton to withdraw our forces from Somalia. Not because of the ensuing blood bath but because it cemented in Bin Laden's mind that the US would not stand long in a fight against him and his followers.

We also realize that finding and killing Bin Laden is secondary to the prosecution of the GWOT. That no matter how dead he is the only way to win the war is to promote democracy and peace in southwest asia. That fanaticism and theocracy will only lead to more lives lost and entire nations under the thumbs of bloody dictators and despots. That the war doesn’t have a military end at all. Like doctors fighting a disease outbreak the only way you know that you have won is when it stops happening.

We also realize that no matter how hard we try, no matter how successful our efforts it is nearly inevitable that one of these global terrorist groups will acquire and use a real weapon of mass destruction. And that when they use it some of you that have your heads buried somewhere will realize that you were wrong and we were right.

I have no idea as to how to convince the rest of the world that the destruction of all forms of terrorism is necessary to ensure the future of mankind. I just know that having a liberal pacifist mindset is one step closer to having your head cut off by a mad man in a turbine.

Like it or not this is a war that we can not afford to walk away from. At all. On any front.


RE: Love it
By PAPutzback on 9/11/2007 11:52:33 AM , Rating: 2
Well said.


RE: Love it
By enlil242 on 9/11/2007 12:39:25 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, well said. And the only people who flourish under an islamic regime are it's leaders (ALl MEN), while every other citizen who unluckily falls under it has no choice. Other people, mostly Women have no choice but to be told how to live and people who try and excercise any freedom for ANYTHING, including religion are executed.

Sorry, this is a tech site and about a piece of tech, but I get sick and tired of hearing the same old BS.


RE: Love it
By knipfty on 9/11/2007 12:37:24 PM , Rating: 3
Very well said.

Those that blame Bush cannot see the big picture. It would be a disaster to bring the troops home now. When wars are fought, they must be concluded with a clear victor or it just drags on and on.

The struggle (cold war) with the USSR went on for 50 years. I suspect this will be much the same. It took leaders like Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Regan to win it.

Unfortunately, the GWOT will get larger and hotter over the next decade or two. Until someone actually wins...


RE: Love it
By TomZ on 9/11/2007 12:47:26 PM , Rating: 5
I agree with what Misty Dingos said, but I also do blame Bush for the decision to invade Iraq and the unsuccessful strategy there which has brought about the current situation.

At some level, we have to hold our leaders accountable for the mistakes they make. With 20/20 hindsight we see the intelligence was faulty, either by accident or on purpose, and we also see that the political situation in Iraq and the Middle East is much more complicated than the Bush Administration thought. In addition, it was a mistake to assume that a resolution could come solely from military action without a strong diplomatic effort.

The reason we have experienced professionals in these positions to make important decisions is that they will have the experience, knowledge, and wisdom to avoid these mistakes. The President may not have that experience personally, however, it is the purpose of his advisers to convey that experience upon him. I suspect this is where the failures occurred.

All that said, we cannot just disengage from Iraq; that would be a disaster. What we need is a new strategy going forward, a new vision, a better plan. So far, I just see "more of the same."


RE: Love it
By Verran on 9/11/2007 3:21:29 PM , Rating: 2
Despite where I may have disagreed with you elsewhere in this thread, I agree 100% with this statement. VERY well phrased.


RE: Love it
By dl429 on 9/11/07, Rating: 0
RE: Love it
By ZmaxDP on 9/11/2007 4:22:05 PM , Rating: 5
There is no such thing as an unwinnable fight, there are just people who are unwilling to do what is required to win. You are clearly in that group of people.

That is not an insult by the way. In some cases doing what is necessary to win is flat out wrong and shouldn't be done. However, in this case I believe we're suffering from two problems that are preventing us from winning this particular fight.

1) A leader who is creative enough to find a feasible solution. (military and political)

2) The politicizing of what should be run by those who are trained to run a war. Last time I checked, a majority of the congress, senate, and administration lack the experience and training to do more than set a general course for our military. Finally we have someone with enough creativity and leeway on the military side to actually prosecute this war effectively, and we're likely to ignore all of his advice in the next few days and instead go with the advice of what is the equivalent of a bunch of arm-chair quarterbacks whose position is based on them following through on promises they made BEFORE hearing any of these reports!

That's why, if you listened to the testimony today, you heard Sen. Joe Biden open the "hearing" (this implies listening is going on somewhere) by telling everyone that he'd already made up his mind: "There are two key questions to consider...and by my judgment and experience the answer to both is no." Well, good news! Cancel the hearing because no one is listening! Who wants to play golf?

Between cowardly politicians pandering to their constituents first and their ethics and better judgment second and an American populace that is under the false impression that you should elect people who look/think/act like you do we're on the right track to being one of those mediocre countries that everyone jokes about on these postings. "America, the next France!" In case anyone forgot, we chose a representative democracy for one reason. The amount of time necessary to inform one's self sufficiently about any topic to be making decisions for an entire country is such that it is prohibitive for anyone to do so beyond their occupation. (It isn't a direct quote, but it's pretty close.) In short, we elect people to govern for us under the assumption that they will inform themselves beyond the level that we ourselves are informed, and thus they will make better and therefore different decisions than we would make on our own.

So, if your representative is voting just like you want all the time, then he probably isn't doing his job after all. We should be voting for people with similar morals or ethics so that with the right information they will make the right decisions. We are supposed to trust these people so that when they make a decision different from our own we figure we're the ones that are probably wrong. If you don't feel that way about your representative, don't vote for them again.

Sorry, this got a bit longer than the one-liner I started out with...


RE: Love it
By ZmaxDP on 9/11/2007 4:25:11 PM , Rating: 3
P.S.> I'm not personally dissing France, I just know it is a popular country to pick on so it seemed the ideal choice to illustrate my point to those people who pick on it, and those who don't. So, insert the mediocre country of your preference instead if that offends you.


RE: Love it
By TomZ on 9/11/2007 4:38:14 PM , Rating: 3
Great post, wish I could still vote it up!


RE: Love it
By dl429 on 9/11/2007 5:49:01 PM , Rating: 1
First of all I'm going to assume that you have never spent time on the ground in Iraq. If that is the case then you have never seen young kids shot to death or blown apart right in front of you. War brings out the most terrible traits of humanity, there are never any winners, just people who pay the ultimate cost. You have quoted Senator Biden's questioning of General Petraeus during today's Senate hearings... Well let me quote to you the only question asked today that matters. Senator John Warner asked General Petraeus weather his strategy for the War in Iraq has made America safer, the Generals response: " I dont know..." Enough said.


RE: Love it
By TomZ on 9/11/2007 9:56:16 PM , Rating: 2
Asking Petraeus about whether America is safer is also a stupid question to ask. He is a military commander, and I doubt he has a perspective on the global and domestic terrorism threat. Clearly such a question is politically motivated to try to discredit Petraeus.


RE: Love it
By Grast on 9/12/2007 7:29:03 PM , Rating: 2
The General is not responsible for make the U.S. safer. He is responsible for making IRAQ stable enough for our troops to leave.

I do not understand what you and others like do not understand one critical point. A country which is rebuilding its infrustructure, feeding its poeple, and growing it economy is not interesting in turning out terrorists.

The only way the general could have awnsered yes is by the congress and president give him the troops and authorization to invade Siria, IRAN, Turkey, Saudia Arabia, and every other etremist Muslim country in that area on the world.

Grow up


RE: Love it
By Gul Westfale on 9/11/07, Rating: 0
RE: Love it
By Ringold on 9/11/2007 4:04:17 PM , Rating: 2
America isn't the one abandoning Afghanistan; it's some of our weak-kneed partners. That said, France under Sarkozy and Britain under Brown may actually be increasing their presence, which will be significant.

Don't fool yourself though with delusions of grandeur. Canada's army is entirely incapable of projecting any power beyond it's own borders without foreign (read:US) assistance in transportation and logistics, and Canada's contribution to Afghanistan is focused primarily in one small, albeit rather nasty, area.

The US, on the other hand, operates across Afghanistan under conditions many of our so-called allies refuse to send soldiers in to. You guys lose a handful of guys and are ready to capitulate, to abandon the country in PRECISELY the same manner which lead to the Taliban originally filling the power vacuum after the West abandoned it after our proxy war with the Soviet Union.

You've already admitted you don't understand why anyone would dare try to be a force for good in the world so I'll leave it at that.


RE: Love it
By ZmaxDP on 9/11/2007 5:35:05 PM , Rating: 1
Gul, the problem with Afghanistan had very little to do with Osama personally and a lot to do with the fact that the existing regime/government provided a safe haven for terrorist organizations LIKE Osama's. So, sending in some special forces would have done jack, as would precision bombing Osama and killing him. Whoop-tee-doo. It would remove one figurehead, and another would pop up in his place.

As for invading Iraq, I don't really understand why we did that either. Was it some percieved link between Saddam and Terrorism that turned out to be non-existant? Was it the perception that WMD's were present in Iraq and could easily make it to said Terrorists? Was it something else entirely? I just don't know. In terms of recrimination and political maneuvering, I suppose it matters why. Personally, it's a little late and I don't really give a rat's ass. We're there, and we've got to deal with it. As for why we don't pull out of either country? We're the glue holding them together at this point. We pull out and a lot more innocent people die. Do you really want us to just leave? Think about it before you answer.

Listen, while the kind of questions you are bringing up are important to help us make better decisions in the future, they don't have much meaning in the context of what we should do today about these situations.


RE: Love it
By Grast on 9/12/2007 7:20:20 PM , Rating: 1
I do not feel powerless to stop the war. That may be your opinion but do not put words in my mouth.

[soapbox] What I am tired of is being called a warmonger after my country was attacked first. Whether Bush's plan to eliminate or contain terrorism was correct is a moot point. We are in IRAQ and AFGAN. The only sad part of this situation is the lack of IRAQIES talking control of their country and turning it into something better than under SADAM. The IRAQIES have failed in that matter. They are letting regional and religious prejudice ruin their one change for TRUE freedom.

In my opinion, the only people which have lost rights is Americans. Everytime I go into an airport, I feel like a criminal. My phone can be tapped now. I am called a war monger for defending my country. My views on how to handle terrism are not main stream. I believe immediately after 911, we should have chosen 4 cities in IRAN, IRAQ, Siria, and Saudia Arabia. Once city for each country should have been tatically nuked. The U.S. would have then warned the world to keep their terroist in check or suffer the consiquences. At that point, the Saudies, IRAQ, IRAN, and Siria would have used their own secret police to find Bin Laudin and hand him to us.

In the 40' and 50's, we were feared. In the 60's and 70's we were a joke and look how the Soviets acted. In the 80's, we were feared and the Soviets treaded lightly. In the 90's and 2000's we were weak and the terrorist took advantage.

I believe we should continue the progression and show the countries which support terrorist what true power is.

However, I am in the minority and my opinion is just another voice in the collective. I only know that I hope another terrorist event does not happen in the U.S. If it does, god help the rest of the world.

Fool me once, shame on you
Fool me twice, shame on me.

Later...


RE: Love it
By SandmanWN on 9/11/2007 11:51:56 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
those were somebody's brother, father, uncle...


Brother, father, uncle, whatever... I don't care if it was the freaking Pope himself on the side of the road setting up those bombs. They planned on killing a bunch of people, maybe they wanted to blow up some soldiers, maybe they wanted to kill some girls going to school to get an education... THEY GOT WHAT THEY DESERVED!!!


RE: Love it
By marsbound2024 on 9/13/2007 5:10:17 AM , Rating: 2
Absolutely. Everyone is someone's brother, father, uncle, aunt, sister, mom, grandson, granddaughter, cousin, cousin-twice-removed, great-great-great-grandchild, stepbrother, stepsister, half-brother, half-sister, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, best friend, pen pal, acquaintance, hell... that just is not relevant sad to say. Yes it is sad to look at it in that way, but it isn't very relevant when EVERYONE is like that. So thank you SandmanWN for that great post.

Jeffery Dahmer was someone's son. Adolf Hitler was someone's son. But they both got what they freaking deserved. And guess what, it was a robot that did it. Now who has that on their consciousness? Maybe the person who operated it remotely, but I really doubt it. I wouldn't give a darn.


RE: Love it
By enlil242 on 9/11/2007 12:11:47 PM , Rating: 5
Just think about this for one second. If there wasn't a device like this and we had only the same technology as we did in WWII or veitnam for that matter, we'd just carpet bomb the area *hoping* to hit the target casting off collateral damage. Sooo many civilians were killed in the Allied and Nazi bombing campaigns, without even scoring 100% hits on the actual targets mind you, that would make this incident a footnote.

Wheter you are for the war, or against war is not the issue. It exists. And even if America was to throw up a protectionist shield again, it would NOT stop the centuries of animosity that European, Asian, Arab and whatever cultures have with one antoher and going to war.

My Grandparents came here from Slovakia in the twenties to escape Hungarian oppression / atrocites as well as MANY people from many societies doing the same thing. That was only 80 years ago!

The mentality that whoever is NOT America puts you in a peace loving utopian society is laughable. The world is one really screwed up haven of madness. America is the deflection of everyone's emotions. America didn't invent war, you know, being around for only 200 or so years. Like every other place I know likes to boast, that their culture has been around for thousands of years. That's thousands of years of death and destruction that has been inflicted by governments, to others as well as their own citizens...

So 2 people planting IEDs got dropped. I can only feel proud that we can protect our troops as well as local citizens from the madness there.

/RANT


RE: Love it
By kyp275 on 9/11/2007 12:19:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
America didn't invent war, you know


the sad part is, there are probably people who believe otherwise.


RE: Love it
By MightyAA on 9/12/2007 10:50:16 AM , Rating: 2
The other sad part is that America is a young country. Like posted above, the other societies have been around thousands of years. How and why America rose to be the dominate force on the planet has a lot to do with us sending troops and supplies overseas. It's also of interest that unlike Europe, we've never claimed any occupied territory as part of our nation. And don't hammer Canada too bad; like USA they have nearly unlimited resources, safe borders, and the ability to mobilize for war... they just chose not to. I respect that.

It does make me nervous about the unmanned drones being armed... how secure is their network? It seems likely to me that eventually someone will crack it and use it against us for either intelligence or direct assault.


RE: Love it
By barclay on 9/11/2007 11:13:52 AM , Rating: 2
>"i am so proud, or i would be, if i were american!"

"For of the gods we believe, and of men we know, that by necessity of their nature wherever they have power they always rule. And so in our case since we neither enacted this law nor when it was enacted were the first to use it, but found it in existence and expect to leave it in existence for all time, so we make use of it, well aware that both you and others, if clothed with the same power as we are, would to the same thing."
-- Speech of the Athenians to the Melians, Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War


RE: Love it
By Gul Westfale on 9/11/07, Rating: -1
RE: Love it
By SandmanWN on 9/11/2007 11:54:47 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
using that kind of logic you could justify hitler, stalin, or any other mass murderer in history.


...Or a couple of low life's setting up bombs on the side of the road to indiscriminately kill whoever came down the road next, which seems to be exactly what you are doing...


RE: Love it
By Gul Westfale on 9/11/07, Rating: -1
RE: Love it
By SandmanWN on 9/11/2007 12:27:26 PM , Rating: 4
get over yourself already. We know what they were doing. The military has learned from past mistakes never to say anything definitively until it is properly analyzed from head to toe.

The cameras on these UAV's are clear enough that you can identify one person from another from thousands of feet in the air. You know damn well they could tell this what an improvised mortar shell. Stop with the BS already.


RE: Love it
By michal1980 on 9/11/2007 12:27:45 PM , Rating: 3
"they were only suspected of doing that. "

Its war, not the oj simpson trial.

you want maranda right read to the people? a proper arrest? a lawyer for them?

The other side wouldn't care 2 cents who they killed. Just look at how they treat prisoners. Film them, chop off their heads then show it on tv.


RE: Love it
By Gul Westfale on 9/11/07, Rating: -1
RE: Love it
By TomZ on 9/11/2007 12:52:04 PM , Rating: 3
How many prisoners did we behead? Sorry, I don't seem to recall that in the news.

I agree there were some mistakes made in a couple of situations, but by and large, the military operates with tremendous integrity.


RE: Love it
By Gul Westfale on 9/11/07, Rating: -1
RE: Love it
By ZmaxDP on 9/11/2007 5:39:58 PM , Rating: 2
Now THAT kind of logic can be used to justify ANYTHING! Or, alternatively, nothing at all.


RE: Love it
By ZmaxDP on 9/11/2007 5:40:54 PM , Rating: 2
My post was supposed to be in response to "whatever." Not sure how it got moved up a link...


RE: Love it
By TomZ on 9/11/2007 12:29:32 PM , Rating: 2
As I said in another post, the tentativeness of this article and the use of the term "suspected" is what journalists have to do in order to avoid getting sued. It should not be interpreted as meaning that the military was unsure about the situation.

Here's a good starting point if you want to understand in more detail what I mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel


RE: Love it
By rushfan2006 on 9/11/2007 12:46:27 PM , Rating: 3
Serious dude...stfu...

you are spliting hairs here -- over WAR.

In war there's one rule --- kill or be killed.

end of story. case closed.


RE: Love it
By ZmaxDP on 9/11/2007 5:42:15 PM , Rating: 2
Now that post just reeks of intelligence and well reasoned argument...


RE: Love it
By lompocus on 9/11/2007 10:40:57 PM , Rating: 1
Tactics do advance. Now, do you honestly think that YOU know more than experienced, professional military commanders?

I give you the example of reconnasaince (I have another but technically i'm not allowed to say lol, it involves how air fights are now fought)

We now use UAVs and them fancy little planes with discs on the top to scout out the enemy, who are then picked off by our support (the means of which i'm also NOT allowed to tell you)


RE: Love it
By Verran on 9/11/2007 10:51:36 AM , Rating: 3
Terrorists your game is through, cuz now ya have to answer to...

AMERICA!!! #$%^ YEAH!!!


RE: Love it
By Polynikes on 9/11/2007 12:35:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Keep 'em coming!

Wars or technology advances?

I'm gonna assume you meant tech, but that statement could be horribly construed, making you look like a war-monger.


RE: Love it
By Screwuhippie on 9/11/2007 1:16:04 PM , Rating: 2
I'm a bit perplexed at the discussion concering the wording "suspected". The US Military has something called Rules of Engagement. This air strike would not be authorized on a hunch. A specific number of "checks and balances" exist before anyone can pull a trigger like this. Our military often times has its hands tied jumping through hoops that our enemies do not have. I guarentee you that if these folks were shot and killed by this UAV ... it was a verified kill. You would be amazed at the amount of certainty the US Military has before it executes a kill.

As far as the predator goes ... notice that the article states this is the first US Army driven UAV Kill ... Predator is an Air Force entity.

Remember those of you who are american or elsewise. 6 years ago today many people lost their lives in a sickening cowardly terrorist attack on innocent people. This is not just an attack against America ... its an attack against everyone that takes for granted you can sit at your Computer and write witty comments on a talkback section. Without defending your freedom ... you would not have this right. Just think about it. War sucks but ... as George Orwell put it.

We sleep safe in our beds at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence upon those who would do us harm.


RE: Love it
By Verran on 9/11/07, Rating: 0
RE: Love it
By Screwuhippie on 9/11/2007 2:33:58 PM , Rating: 2
Today is the anniversary of 9-11 man ... show some respect.

And your little news story has nothing to do w/the war in Iraq. But I applaud your attempt to blast our military.

The Military is not infalible but they just don't blow stuff up w/o proper identification either.


RE: Love it
By Verran on 9/11/2007 3:05:56 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Today is the anniversary of 9-11 man ... show some respect.

How am I disrespecting it? Am I minimizing the loss or it's impact? No. It was a tragic event, and one we shouldn't ever forget. But I also think there's a very special place reserved for people who use the emotional impact of those events to further their own agendas. (And yes, that includes country singers.)

Should I just stop asking questions and follow blindly? Should I assume all decisions are right and not look into them because the clock on my screen says September, 11? No. I don't see how the date matters at all in this discussion.

quote:
And your little news story has nothing to do w/the war in Iraq. But I applaud your attempt to blast our military.

Way to miss the point. I presented that news story as a direct opposition to your "checks and balances" point. It was meant to show that no one is perfect, and no matter how much we think our system is perfect, it's not. But you'd rather dodge that point than address it.

You can "check" and "balance" to your heart's content, but people still make mistakes, just like that link shows. So don't try to tell me something couldn't happen because of checks and balances.


RE: Love it
By Screwuhippie on 9/11/2007 3:18:15 PM , Rating: 2
Well lets see ... I didn't justify the bomb dropping ... I was commenting on the "suspected" portion of the arguement. It seems the folks blasting this article are accusing us of blowing stuff up based on (forgive the generalization) hunches ... I was pointing out that you can bet before the strike was called it was confirmed by some very smart people using some stuff you don't know exists.

So ... attack all you want but ... we don't just kill stuff with itchy trigger fingers. We have the most respectable, highly trained force in the world. We fight with a code and standards that our enemy DOES NOT have ... but we do it anyway. Are we perfect? No ... but we do the best we can ... which our enemy probably doesn't deserve.

As for 911 ... i'm not justifying anything ... i'm pointing out that ... this world is a sick sad place and left to its own devices dictators and bully's would be doing some even nastier stuff ... those that care realize that to sit and do nothing is the same as accepting. Its an example of what is at stake.

Feel free to ask questions ... but when actual facts are provided ... you are sort of obligated to listen ... you don't have to believe but ... just because the answer to your question isn't what you wanted to hear doesn't mean its not true.


RE: Love it
By Verran on 9/11/2007 3:36:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I was pointing out that you can bet before the strike was called it was confirmed by some very smart people using some stuff you don't know exists.

That's fair. Chances are, there's a lot more details to the story than we got.

quote:
We have the most respectable, highly trained force in the world.

Just to be clear, this is an opinion.

quote:
those that care realize that to sit and do nothing is the same as accepting.

This is a true statement. Unfortunately, it's often used to imply that anyone who questions the military at all is indeed inclined to do "nothing". This is, of course, a gigantic exaggeration. It IS possible to question this or that without wishing to literally "do nothing".

Some people might even go so far as to use a statement like this to imply that anyone who didn't support this one single bombing would prefer to "do nothing". Again, that's infantile to the point of absurdity, but I'm sure that wasn't your intent.

quote:
Feel free to ask questions ... but when actual facts are provided ... you are sort of obligated to listen ...

Right, but where are the facts? A lot of comments have expressed a lot of assumptions and opinions, but as I have stated and restated now, my whole initial post was to point out that if they wanted to really brag about the first use of this weapon, it probably would have helped to include a bit more facts.

Read the article again. There's like 3 sentences actually describing what happened, and they're quite ambiguous at that. I don't know what happened or didn't happen, and neither does anyone else who wasn't there.


RE: Love it
By TomZ on 9/11/2007 3:26:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How am I disrespecting it? Am I minimizing the loss or it's impact? No.

You're in denial. Read what you wrote.
quote:
Also, drop the whole 9/11 drama. OMG, 6 years ago people died

I think some of your points are right, but you're going too far in the other direction. Our nation has a legitimate right to defend itself. Yes, some mistakes have been made - these are very hard things to do - but we have to keep the goal in mind, which is to guarantee our continued safety as well as our liberties. We can't just throw in the towel somehow hope that our enemies for some reason give up their quest to kill us. That sounds like the plan you're advocating, and I don't think that's a good one either.


RE: Love it
By Verran on 9/11/2007 3:49:25 PM , Rating: 2
See how easy it is to win an argument once you play the 9/11 card?

When did I ever say or imply that we should back out of the war? When have I said anything about the war as a whole at all? My whole point is, and has been, that WE DON'T KNOW what happened in this event. The article is very ambiguous. A lot of people like to make assumptions based on this or that, and I have combated those justifications. That's it.

That fact that 9/11 happened doesn't mean we can claim to know what happened in this story. The fact that we have "checks and balances" doesn't mean we can claim to know what happened in this story. The fact that someone served in some armed service at one point doesn't mean they can claim to know what happened in this story.

And here's my response, from a different post, to the 9/11 non-sense:
quote:
Liberals question the war, argument ensues, goes south... how do you fix it? Bring up 9/11! That's how. Now the liberal either has to agree with you, or they look like they support what happened that day. Yup, just say the numbers 9 and 11 in the same breath and you can do whatever you want after that. Anyone who questions you is a terrorist.

It is drama. Not the event itself, that's a tragedy. But tacking 9/11 onto a discussion about what's happening right now (NOT six years ago). People use the event to tug at people's heartstrings. If 9/11 made you sad, you should support [my opinion here]. Bull. If you really had a point, you wouldn't need to wrench on people's emotions to make it.

As I already said. 9/11 was terrible, but it does not mean we get a blank check. We're still responsible for our actions in war, just like we were before 9/11.

quote:
It was a tragic event, and one we shouldn't ever forget. But I also think there's a very special place reserved for people who use the emotional impact of those events to further their own agendas.


RE: Love it
By TomZ on 9/11/2007 4:01:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When did I ever say or imply that we should back out of the war?

When did I say that you said anything about the war? I only quoted your 9/11 comments because I thought they were out of turn. What followed that was my view of the war, i.e., the main topic of this thread. You're reading too much into my reply.

For the record, I don't see much correlation between 9/11 and the Iraq war today, and I don't really see how anybody is getting a blank check because of 9/11, or how arguments are being won or lost because of 9/11.

And I agree with you - we don't know the details of this one kill - so let's give it a rest!


RE: Love it
By Verran on 9/11/2007 4:13:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And I agree with you - we don't know the details of this one kill - so let's give it a rest!

Agreed!


RE: Love it
By SandmanWN on 9/11/2007 3:05:42 PM , Rating: 2
Verran defined:
Calls 9/11 drama... You got some balls there.

Quotes NBC on anything about the war... The ever falling pit of bias and all time low numbers of viewership. Great source you got there pal! Theres a reason why nobody is watching except for you...

One mistake means the entire system is faulty... Because in a land filled with millions of people its inconceivable to you that an operation as large this can never have a mistake, ever. Oh hell, we made a mistake. Lets all slit our wrists cause the hole damn thing is broken! /sarcasm

Why is it that you feel one mistake by the US is somehow equatable in justifying every and all mistakes made by anyone else? How do you equate this is; 1 to 100, 1 to 1000, whats the ratio to you?


RE: Love it
By Verran on 9/11/2007 3:18:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

Verran defined:
Calls 9/11 drama... You got some balls there.

Oh, I can't wait. The next response is surely that I'm a terrorist, right? Yup, that's how this whole thing works...

Liberals question the war, argument ensues, goes south... how do you fix it? Bring up 9/11! That's how. Now the liberal either has to agree with you, or they look like they support what happened that day. Yup, just say the numbers 9 and 11 in the same breath and you can do whatever you want after that. Anyone who questions you is a terrorist.

It is drama. Not the event itself, that's a tragedy. But tacking 9/11 onto a discussion about what's happening right now (NOT six years ago). People use the event to tug at people's heartstrings. If 9/11 made you sad, you should support [my opinion here]. Bull. If you really had a point, you wouldn't need to wrench on people's emotions to make it.

As I already said. 9/11 was terrible, but it does not mean we get a blank check. We're still responsible for our actions in war, just like we were before 9/11.

quote:
Quotes NBC on anything about the war... The ever falling pit of bias and all time low numbers of viewership.

So you're saying it's not true? Answer directly. Don't dodge the question, and don't generalize about NBC. Your statement implies that the story is not accurate. Do you believe it happened, or don't you?


RE: Love it
By SandmanWN on 9/11/2007 3:57:05 PM , Rating: 2
Keep it up there. Hey if you can name 5 more US mistakes then you can completely nullify the next 1000 years or so of any mistakes any nation will ever make and call it a minor spat of drama.
quote:
Liberals question the war, argument ensues, goes south...

Liberals don't question anything. They've already decided what the answer is and they will only hear or report on the data that supports their preconceived notions. If you dare try to say anything else they will stick their fingers in their ears and scream the same crap over and over again until you leave. Same goes for you. The only thing you have made abundantly clear today is that your sole purpose for posting is to point out anything and everything the US has done wrong and use it as justification for anything else you might say. Your entire synopsis for the day is that one US wrong negates a thousands rights. Oh, and if you disagree then you are part of the drama.
quote:
Don't dodge the question, and don't generalize about NBC.

Unlike you I won't dodge the question, the SOB's got one right. See, that wasn't so hard, can you do the same?

It only took about 2 minutes to look at anything posted in response to Petreaus and recognize a political spin job. There is absolutely zero reported on any of the positive outcomes reported by Petreaus, none, zero, zilch, nadda. I offer this as a perfect example of spin at its finest...
quote:
The pessimism expressed by most people - including significant minorities of Republicans - contrasted with the brighter picture offered by Gen. David Petraeus.

WTF is a significant minority of anything??? Thats like saying a significant minority of the sky is pink therefore pink sky RULES!


RE: Love it
By ZmaxDP on 9/11/2007 6:34:24 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Liberals don't question anything. They've already decided what the answer is and they will only hear or report on the data that supports their preconceived notions.


And how are you any different? It isn't "Liberals" who don't question anything, it is people who make broad stereotypes who fail to question the assumptions behind that stereotype. "Liberals don't question anything." "Republicans are just warmongers." "White people don't kill each-other" "War is evil" "America is good" "Muslims are terrorists" "Americans are all Infidels" "Everything on NBC is biased and wrong" There are a couple of million more where that came from. Make a generalization or stereotype and 99% of the time you're making a mistake. (The 99% bit prevents me from having made the same mistake!)

I don't like the stereotype that anytime 9-11 is brought into a conversation that it is always to dramatize the topic and prevent people from disagreeing openly. I've brought up 9-11 before and I'll bring it up again when appropriate, and not once have I done so to prevent argument. Take it how you like, but don't drag me into it. That's why attempts at these stereotypes fail. There's always at least one person who will take offense because they're part of said group of people but don't meet the particular classification you're implying is consistent across all the members of said group. So, I technically disagree with the other guy too if it makes you feel any better. I just happen to disagree with you both for the same reason.

Then again, you're not even replying to his original point, you've taken an implicit argument in it and focused your attack on it. It's a great tactic, but it is one you take when you cannot refute the main point.

I think the real problem here is that someone mentioned 9-11 in a manner that a majority of the other posters feel is disrespectful.
quote:
"OMG..."

You may not feel it was disrespectful, but if most other people do you kind of have to acknowledge that it came across that way. Since "respect" is always perceived and never a factual matter you have to be careful when discussing sensitive events. You should know 9-11 is a minefield topic, you clearly show you're aware of it in your other posts, so perhaps you should exercise some caution when bringing it up. This doesn't mean don't bring it up, but it does mean not saying "OMG, like a bunch of people died..."


RE: Love it
By colonelclaw on 9/13/2007 8:31:22 AM , Rating: 2
you Americans jerking off over military hardware is one of the reasons the world is a screwed up place

sad to see DT full of right-wingers, i thought technologically enlightened people were meant to be a little more liberal


Lack of Detail?
By Verran on 9/11/2007 10:48:30 AM , Rating: 3
I understand that this is probably just a summary, but as it reads it's quite disturbing.
quote:
The enemy combatants were suspected of planting improvised explosive device (IEDs) on a roadway, so air support was requested by the SWT. A Hunter UAV was sent to the location where it dropped a precision bomb on the two suspects. Both were killed by the blast.

Isn't there supposed to be a step in-between suspecting someone of a crime and killing them? Don't we normally need to confirm these sorts of things before we bomb a target?




RE: Lack of Detail?
By SandmanWN on 9/11/2007 10:55:58 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah cause its such a far stretch of the imagination as to what two individuals are doing when they drag a device to the side of the road in the early morning hours and leave the equipment behind. Those two people should have been doing the correct thing which is putting their guns down and getting their worthless @sses to work and making their country a better place to live.


RE: Lack of Detail?
By Verran on 9/11/2007 11:52:51 AM , Rating: 2
NONE of the data you included in your post is accurate. It is all assumed by you in order to justify the conclusion you've already reached.

dragging a device?
side of the road?
early morning hours?
leaving the equipment behind?

Not one of those things is even vaguely mentioned in the article. These are all assumptions on your part. You obviously have no problem making up facts and adding them as you read to ensure that the article concludes the way you want it to.


RE: Lack of Detail?
By SandmanWN on 9/11/2007 11:57:06 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah cause after years of the same things happening every day we have absolutely zero clue when and how these things occur. Pfff!!!


RE: Lack of Detail?
By Verran on 9/11/2007 12:52:49 PM , Rating: 1
That's quite possibly the dumbest response I've seen in the last month.

Your entire logic is based on the ASSUMPTION that these two people were indeed planting an IED. Nowhere in the article does it say that. It says they were SUSPECTED. That means we don't know.

Your logic is circular. You use made up facts to justify a conclusion, and then when asked where the facts come from, you say "well that's how it always happens". But you don't know what was happening! That's what the word "suspected" means. It means they don't know. If they knew, they wouldn't have said "suspected".

So you jump to a conclusion that's contrary to the facts, make up your own facts to back that conclusion, then use the assumed conclusion to back those facts. Wow, you fail.

I'm not saying that these two people did or didn't do ANYTHING. All I'm saying is that if I was going to brag about my first automated multi-kill, I'd come up with a better story than killing "suspected" terrorists.

"Hey, look! We killed two people who might've been terrorists!"


RE: Lack of Detail?
By TomZ on 9/11/2007 1:00:24 PM , Rating: 2
The term "suspected" only means that the journalist doesn't want to get sued, because he/she does not have definitive proof they were planting an IED. It doesn't mean that the military people who make the decision were not completely sure about what was going on.


RE: Lack of Detail?
By SandmanWN on 9/11/07, Rating: 0
RE: Lack of Detail?
By Verran on 9/11/07, Rating: 0
RE: Lack of Detail?
By SandmanWN on 9/11/2007 1:42:15 PM , Rating: 3
I take the word of a trained "Scout" team seriously. That is what they are trained to do. And yes it does mean that they observed very specific actions that warranted the authorization from superiors to gain access to a UAV to drop a bomb. The wasn't an instantaneous reaction. It would take a finite amount of time in order for these events to occur. There is a hierarchy there and it served its purpose exactly as it was supposed to.

Only an asinine person such as yourself would try to validate questioning every action ever made from this point forward for the rest of all time on the merits of one mistake in the past.

I would go further but I am having great pains in determining the actual meaning of your rant through all the grammatical errors.


RE: Lack of Detail?
By Verran on 9/11/2007 2:04:35 PM , Rating: 2
The actual meaning is extraordinarily simple. You don't know. You don't know what happened, and neither do I. "Vague" doesn't even come close to describing the wording in the article, and yet you've already made up your mind what happened.

Apparently being "trained" at a task means that you are always correct, and shouldn't not be subject to questions. This is why we never question other "trained" officials, like police and firemen. I guess being "trained" also means that when reading write-ups of your actions, we should ignore the words and just assume you were right, always.


RE: Lack of Detail?
By kyp275 on 9/11/2007 2:27:15 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The actual meaning is extraordinarily simple. You don't know. You don't know what happened, and neither do I


exactly, since you so candidly acknowledged that you have no idea what really happened, why are you so dead set on this being some sort of trigger-happy killing of two innocent men instead of a simple enemy elimination?

esp. when you're basing your word from a report written by a journalist for PR purposes which is intentionally vague.

Like I've told another poster earlier, either you show that you've read the actual after-action report, or STFU.


RE: Lack of Detail?
By rcc on 9/11/2007 4:55:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh except for a few days ago when we accidentally flew 6 armed warheads over a handful of states for no reason.


ooooo, nice spin. But, that was a B52 armed with.... Not 6 armed warheads.


RE: Lack of Detail?
By SandmanWN on 9/11/2007 5:01:48 PM , Rating: 2
Nice catch, I missed that particular spin. Armed warheads is a great spin on decommissioned arms that have zero chance of activating.


RE: Lack of Detail?
By ZmaxDP on 9/11/2007 6:44:30 PM , Rating: 2
Listen, you're being an ass. You take a well intentioned response pointing out an alternate point of view and you turn it into an opportunity to attack someone personally and call them almost every name you can think of.

The annoying thing is that both of you have completely valid points but neither of you seems capable of acknowledging that. The difference is that you're the one doing the name calling, the the other poster is dead on that you're making up "facts" and representing them as such. That's not conducive to intelligent debate. And, you make some of the worst generalizations I've seen to date. This post is a great example.

quote:
decommissioned arms that have zero chance of activating.


Never in my life have I EVER heard someone who works with these kind of weapons ever VAGUELY suggest that a decommissioned bomb had a 0% chance of going off. You couldn't get one to say that with a gun to their head. Just stop making crap statements that are flat out wrong and maybe your posts would have a little more weight behind them...


RE: Lack of Detail?
By SandmanWN on 9/11/2007 9:36:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Listen, you're being an ass.

So are a lot of other people on here today starting these ridiculous posts like insinuating that there were no checks and balances in this UAV event and using it as a club to bash our military, political leaders, and belittling a tragic event such as 9/11. And here you are wanting me to somehow acknowledge this as a good point? Psh.

quote:
Never in my life have I EVER heard someone who works with these kind of weapons ever VAGUELY suggest that a decommissioned bomb had a 0% chance of going off.

I believe if you go back and read the press releases by the Pentagon it will become immediately clear that there was no chance of these nukes going off. They take an authentication code directly from the highest levels of the government. They simply do not trigger like a normal bomb. Do you dispute that? Obviously this doesn't hold true for your standard munitions but this has nothing to do with your typical bomb. These bombs have to be activated in a very specific way and those pieces weren't in place during this event.


RE: Lack of Detail?
By wrekd on 9/11/2007 1:11:50 PM , Rating: 2
I got an idea...

How about we ask the terrorists wear red coats?

That way we will know they are the bad guys...

Because they'll be wearing red coats.


RE: Lack of Detail?
By fleshconsumed on 9/11/2007 11:02:32 AM , Rating: 2
Was about to say that as well. They suspected they were planting IEDs, but they did not know for sure. If they did not know for sure that, what are the chances they did not know for sure they were "enemy combatants" at all? I would say this is very likely considering SWT did not go in to verify their suspicions.

It is kind of disturbing when someone makes a decision to kill based purely based on the suspicion. I know evidence may have pointed that way, but the fact remains, army killed suspected "combatants" who may have been innocent people after all.


RE: Lack of Detail?
By TomZ on 9/11/2007 11:06:49 AM , Rating: 2
You don't know enough about that situation to criticize the decision that was made, so shut your trap. Unless you were there, you're sitting quite a distance away playing armchair quarterback.


RE: Lack of Detail?
By fleshconsumed on 9/11/2007 11:27:55 AM , Rating: 2
This is not the first time I see you having logic problems TomZ.

Here are your assumptions: you assume those were enemy combatants, end of discussion. And if that was true, I would have agreed with you they got what they deserved.

However, here are the facts, taken straight from the source
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_conte...

Key quotes are:
"two unknown enemy fighters"
"two suspected improvised explosive device emplacers"

Let me translate the article for you. A scout team saw someone suspicious. They did not investigate, but called air support instead. I know this is a war zone and you cannot apply "innocent until proven guilty" the same way you do here, but dammit, you cannot blast away everyone who looks the wrong way.


RE: Lack of Detail?
By kyp275 on 9/11/2007 11:38:06 AM , Rating: 3
First off, that article you linked doesn't say anything more than the dailytech article.

Second, and I won't fault you for this, but did you know that there are roads and areas that are completely off-limits to civilian right? When I was there, we have sniper teams watching the roads that are off limits to the civilians (usually convoy travel routes) to watch for insurgents planting IEDs, this is mostly likely what happened here.

Is there a way for us to confirm it? no, it's called OpSec. but trust me, it's really obvious when you see a couple guys planting stuff on the side of the road.


RE: Lack of Detail?
By fleshconsumed on 9/11/2007 12:13:24 PM , Rating: 1
First off, that article you linked doesn't say anything more than the dailytech article.
Thank you for noticing that. I relinked because it would seem like TomZ did not read it in the first place.

Second, and I won't fault you for this...

*snip*

...the side of the road.

Everything you just said were your own assumptions . I went with the source, the only reliable source of information you and I have. And that source said those two people were suspected but not confirmed . That is the fact. The decision was made on a hunch and not a fact.


RE: Lack of Detail?
By TomZ on 9/11/2007 12:23:36 PM , Rating: 3
I stand by what I said. I don't know what happened there, so I can't say, but neither can you. The word "suspected" is used by news journalists so they don't get sued. It doesn't mean that the military was unsure about the situation. If they called in an air strike, then they were sure.


RE: Lack of Detail?
By kyp275 on 9/11/2007 12:42:29 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Everything you just said were your own assumptions . I went with the source, the only reliable source of information you and I have. And that source said those two people were suspected but not confirmed . That is the fact. The decision was made on a hunch and not a fact.


again, the "suspected" word came from the journalist who wrote the report, not the military. you can bet that if you actually get a hold of the actual after-action report, you won't see the sniper scout saying "suspected" in his report :rolleyes:

assumptions? how about my own past first-hand experience? of course, you'd know what it's like if you've actually been there.


RE: Lack of Detail?
By kyp275 on 9/11/2007 2:54:01 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
suspected but not confirmed


oh yea btw, show me where in the article it says that.

I can't seem to find "not confirmed" anywhere in there, seems like that part came from your own personal assumption.

as for the use of the word "suspect"... well, let's just put it this way. A cop can personally see someone gunning down 10 innocent bystanders, and he'll still refer to the killer as "suspect"

good thing we don't have to arrest every enemy combatant and put them through trial before we can shoot them. But I guess you'd want us to fight with nothing but rubber bullets and handcuffs :rolleyes:


RE: Lack of Detail?
By rcc on 9/11/2007 5:10:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but dammit, you cannot blast away everyone who looks the wrong way.


Quite right. However, this is where the terrorists tactics bite them in the arse. After you setup ambushes and traps for troops seeking "confirmation", on a regular basis, you will quickly get to a point that no one wants to take the chance that it is not another ambush. And this is reasonable to most people as the troops have families they would like to return to. Except, of course, for the armchair generals that get to sit home and second guess every decision.


RE: Lack of Detail?
By Maleb on 9/11/2007 11:27:57 AM , Rating: 2
And you are assuming the people controlling this device did have enough info even though they may not have. I find it laughable that you call him an armchair quarterback yet it sounds like that is exactly what the operator of this unmanned device is. And you do not know any more than he does except what the they tell you, so take your own advice.

Forgive me for not trusting the words of the US military but their record of being honest is far from stellar.

And it takes some gall to make an article about this on 9/11. It's a day of mourning for Americans, and the world as well. I would think a break from the promotion of the war might be the respectable thing to do, of course I don't think this is an "American bashing" article like I bet some of you do.

Someone posted "necessity is the mother of inventions". Explain to me how this is possibly necessary.

I know that most Americans do not support the war, and I do not envy the troops, their families or the politicians who have to find a way to move forward in this situation. That being said, this article just advertises this unmanned device as an effective killer. So Daily Tech can throw all claims of being unbiased out the window.(if they had any)


RE: Lack of Detail?
By kyp275 on 9/11/2007 11:47:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And you are assuming the people controlling this device did have enough info even though they may not have. I find it laughable that you call him an armchair quarterback yet it sounds like that is exactly what the operator of this unmanned device is.


read the article again, the UAV strike is called in by a sniper team on the ground that had visual confirmation.


RE: Lack of Detail?
By Gul Westfale on 9/11/07, Rating: 0
RE: Lack of Detail?
By DeltaZero on 9/11/2007 11:18:16 AM , Rating: 2
My thought exactly. Can't be sure that some general up there did not say he wants some kill by Sept 1st to justify development costs. Would not surprise me at all, if that UAV dropped a couple of shovels nearby :)


RE: Lack of Detail?
By Maleb on 9/11/2007 11:30:37 AM , Rating: 2
Arms sales is very big business, for many nations including USA. They are hardly alone in participating in the industry


RE: Lack of Detail?
By ziggo on 9/11/2007 11:33:03 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps the "verification" step involved classified intel capabilities that we dont care to discolose. Perhaps there were no soldiers on the ground at all.


RE: Lack of Detail?
By Micronite on 9/11/2007 12:05:13 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, yeah, I can see it now.

Commander: Listen up! Two guys just dropped some equipment off on the side of a road. We think it's an IED, but before we take them out we need to confirm. Any volunteers?

Troops: ....................


RE: Lack of Detail?
By rcc on 9/11/2007 12:47:21 PM , Rating: 2
Read your quote.

quote:
The enemy combatants


Case closed.


RE: Lack of Detail?
By Verran on 9/11/07, Rating: 0
idiots
By Gothmoth88 on 9/11/07, Rating: 0
RE: idiots
By FITCamaro on 9/11/07, Rating: 0
RE: idiots
By TomZ on 9/11/2007 11:03:57 AM , Rating: 2
You're right about that. It's possible the OP is an actually American, and the problem is that we, as a society, have the memory span of a mosquito. For most people, 9/11 is distant memory, and since there haven't been any successful attacks here on American soil since, we are becoming more complacent again. Flippant comments about 9/11 are just a symptom of that overall problem.


RE: idiots
By Gothmoth88 on 9/11/07, Rating: -1
RE: idiots
By enlil242 on 9/11/2007 12:21:01 PM , Rating: 1
^^ Assh@le...


RE: idiots
By rushfan2006 on 9/11/2007 12:50:36 PM , Rating: 2
Gothmoth....

please give me the 50 IQ points back and the 1 minute of my life that your worthless post just sucked away from me.


RE: idiots
By SandmanWN on 9/11/2007 12:50:48 PM , Rating: 2
If everyone outside of the US had a brain then how do you explain idiots like yourself? What sort of a moron would make a statement about celebrating more death and destruction and then actually try to proclaim they actually have a functional brain? (just to clue your brain in, those were rhetorical)

All about the oil??? What f'ing oil??? Iraq is nowhere near its former oil production status. All the money is being funneled into rebuilding the nation that these two idiots on the side of the road with their bomb was trying to destroy!


RE: idiots
By fijillian on 9/11/07, Rating: -1
RE: idiots
By rcc on 9/11/2007 3:14:47 PM , Rating: 1
More pathetic mewing from someone bound and determined to twist things their way.

We Americans are truly sick. We like freedom, we think everyone should have it. But, for the most part we leave it up to you to decide if you'd rather be slaves to a secular or religious leader. The world is a sad place because it is, we didn't do it, sometimes we make it better, sometimes worse. The balance depends on your perspective.

Yup, the Iraq war is all about the oil. So many people say it, that it must be true. Then again, my gas prices are higher than they've ever been, so maybe we aren't getting all that free oil after all. And you are terminally wrong if you think it had nothing to do with 9/11.

Yes, airplanes can kill, great observation. Then again so can rifles, cars, oxyacetalene torches, and kool-aid. It's people, not tools.

As near as I can tell, the only ones that enjoy killing are the terrorists, and the few semi-controlled pychopaths that find their way into most armies. But I can only speak to their actions.

I wish you a sad and introspective 9/11. May you contemplate world peace and ways to bring it to fruition.


How does this compare to the Predator
By UNCjigga on 9/11/2007 11:14:00 AM , Rating: 2
What makes this UAV better than a Predator drone? Can it stay aloft for longer periods of time? Predators already have scores of kills so I'm not sure what makes this UAV special.




By DeltaZero on 9/11/2007 11:20:20 AM , Rating: 2
A predator is UAV. Look it up in Google, you'll see Predator is MQ-1, vs this guy MQ-5.


By TedStriker on 9/11/2007 11:37:01 AM , Rating: 2
I was thinking the same thing. The Predator UAV has already scored kills, so this is not the first kill by a UAV as the article says. It may be the first kill for this particular UAV, but not for all UAV's.


Sick of the Partisan Bulljive
By jtemplin on 9/11/2007 5:40:29 PM , Rating: 1
Please post a shout out in reply if you are also sick and tired of all these comments fueled by political motivations...

For example in this post rated as a 4, I find this garbage at the end, "I just know that having a liberal pacifist mindset is one step closer to having your head cut off by a mad man in a turbine."

A great post, ruined IMO, because now I am skeptical of the credibility of the poster. This poster may be a "wingnut", but the real important fact is that he/she is a radical. All forms of radicalism should be distrusted, whether it be Democratic, Republican, religious, etc.

While on the topic of politics on this website. Let me point out an observation of mine: Any article relating to the 2nd Amendment, War In Iraq (basically anything invoking US nationalism) drums up huge support from the conservative camp along with the radical "wingnuts". Any article relating to DMCA, DRM, EFF etc, similarly brings out its own vocal community of vocal liberals along with the accompanying "liberal pacifist mindset". I'm curious if anyone else has noticed this particular discontinuity in DailyTech user opinion. If so drop a line!

In closing, I would like to propose that instead of attempting to refute radical thinking, intelligent posters just ignore their FUD completely and the ensuing pointless argument that will only steel their opinion.

PS Certain people also should get off their high American horse (I know, we are pretty tight, but no need to flaunt it...). Cultural bias is just dripping from some of these posts, certainly solidifying our foreign readers' negative opinions about Americans.

-Scott




RE: Sick of the Partisan Bulljive
By SirLucius on 9/11/2007 5:44:10 PM , Rating: 3
I think the reason for the political discrepancy you've noted is that many members on DT, like myself, are libertarians, and tend to be more conservative when it comes to foreign policy and economics, and more liberal on social issues.


RE: Sick of the Partisan Bulljive
By TomZ on 9/11/2007 10:00:16 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, same here.


Bring on SKYNET
By Pneumothorax on 9/11/2007 10:09:59 AM , Rating: 2
I can't wait till they make these things automated... Then again quite an accomplishment.




RE: Bring on SKYNET
By enlil242 on 9/11/2007 12:33:46 PM , Rating: 2
Lol, I was just going to reply above until I saw this. BRING ON THE T1000's!

Then all thouse years of Mech-style video games will come in handy!
;-)


One can dream...
By TimberJon on 9/11/2007 11:20:53 AM , Rating: 2
Im waiting for that period when tanks evolve. We need 2-4 story walking tanks, THEN I'll sign up.




RE: One can dream...
By TedStriker on 9/11/2007 11:44:31 AM , Rating: 2
I'm waiting till the iRobot and Hunter UAV grow up to bigger versions and carry larger munitions. Then we can turn on Skynet to completely automate the system for us.


Video Gaming Generation
By Etsp on 9/11/2007 10:32:44 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I'm happy to see that my generation will be able to put their unique skills to use in combating those whom the general world's consensus is evil. My only concern is that my generation may be told to combat those whom only our CIC considers evil. But, this tech will save lives...and make it easier for politicians with agendas to initiate wars. This technology is a double-edged sword. It can be an incredible tool to better the world, and it can also be a terrible tool for policing it.




By PAPutzback on 9/11/2007 11:49:36 AM , Rating: 2
I would think UAVs would patrol roads and any area that is going to be used in an upcoming mission 24/7. If they see someone loitering around the side of the road and they don't have a D.O.T. vest on then it is very likely they are doing something they shouldn't. Perhaps killing them on the spot was premature. But if we can see a dime from space I iamgine a UAV could see what they were up to at 20,000 feet. Even at night.

Perhaps a better option would to somehow tag the individuals while calling in another robot to check for the IED and then capturing the individuals. Dead men don't talk and therefore can't lead us to Osama.

It is good to know that the ultimately a Humvee full of troops wasn't lost to an IED though. And that they aren't around to plant an IED tomorrow.




interesting
By ForumMaster on 9/11/2007 12:27:23 PM , Rating: 2
how is this different then israel's UAVs? we've had UAVs firing missiles at targets for years now. is this UAV different because it's not controlled by a pilot?




Can´t believe your behaivour
By Powered by AMD on 9/11/07, Rating: 0
RE: Can´t believe your behaivour
By TomZ on 9/11/2007 4:48:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Its unbelievable that you are actually happy when two people have been killed without judgment.

If the military sees two guys in a war zone planting a bomb by the side of the road, then sorry, but justice was served. It's like another poster said, innocent Iraqi citizens know enough about what's going to not get caught up in something like this.
quote:
only wants to get petrol from Irak

By your (faulty) logic, we should be be planning to invade these these countries next: Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezula, Nigeria, etc. since we also get oil from them. I'm sure it had nothing to do with Hussain and the threat he was to neighboring countries as well as citizens of Iraq.

By the way, I can't speak for all Americans, but I am not happy when anybody gets killed in war - Iraqis or Americans.


WOW AMAZING!
By GlassHouse69 on 9/11/2007 2:31:58 PM , Rating: 1
It only took 3 billion dollars for that hit!

WOW! Guys with towels for body armour, 1970 ak-47's, no military training, and used parts from appliances are taken out with high tech weaponary! I really dont need healthcare or assistance when I retire! Bomb those sand mofo's ! I can find food another day!

I feel so privledged to be an AMERICAN

FUCK YEAH!




overkill. i love it.
By acme420 on 9/11/07, Rating: -1
RE: overkill. i love it.
By VERTIGGO on 9/11/2007 11:36:09 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah we should have asked them nicely to put away the bombs and go home.

BTW, I spent the winter patrolling on foot over there. There are public rules about digging near roads, going out after curfew, etc. "Innocent" Iraqis know very well how to stay out of our way and avoid being mistaken for bomb planters.


RE: overkill. i love it.
By Gothmoth88 on 9/11/07, Rating: -1
RE: overkill. i love it.
By TomZ on 9/11/2007 12:37:24 PM , Rating: 2
That's really childish and inappropriate.


RE: overkill. i love it.
By GlassHouse69 on 9/11/2007 6:39:45 PM , Rating: 2
im half anti armed services at times but that is pushing the limit of decency.


RE: overkill. i love it.
By rippleyaliens on 9/12/2007 12:28:33 AM , Rating: 2
Well i tell you this , not from boasting, or riding the tails of others. But as a Marine who "Been there done that"
I tell you what.. ANd it is like this in the Armed forces, especially in the Combat arms (Marine Infantry, Army Infantry).
This is War people. not checkers, or chess. Those young guys there, whether you beleive it or not, HAVE NO CHOICE to be there. In Gulf War I, you best believe that if it bleeds, then we can kill it, mentality was the rule of thumb. AND trust me when I say this, when we killed MANY IRAQ's, it wasnt blood lust, but Brotherhood.. i would kill 100 enemy, as that my Friend would not die.
2 suckers planting IED's, well if it wasnt the plane, then how about 12 (1 Squad), laying down HEAVY fire on whever they were at?? The plane was , and is a very safe way to eleminate the enemy.
Unless you have worn the uniform, and put your 6 on the line, then you have very little to say, other than what you read from CORPORATE controlled News sources. Unless you are there, you know nothing of what is going on..

Overkill?? Whatever.. that was a walk in the park. Tell you what, let someone kill your brother, or sister.. then tell me what you would do? Just sit there, or unleash whatever you got, as fast as you could, with little regard to hurting some young punks feelings??
wussies i tell you..


RE: overkill. i love it.
By weskurtz0081 on 9/12/2007 6:47:43 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree with you. Most of the people in here obviously have no clue as to what goes on when a strike like this is taking place. Sitting over here in the states and obviously criticizing the military over a damn article that said suspected! Grow the hell up, they would not have terminated the individuals had they not been damn sure they were up to no good. Like tomz said.... f-ing arm chair quarterbacks, if you want to have a clue as to how things work in the military... why don't you join up and stop criticizing the men and women while sitting in the safety of your home.


"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki