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

Run_to_da_hills

Pentagon lists 66 countries as eligible to buy US drones

The 66 countries were listed in a Defense Department policy worked out last year to clear the way for wider overseas sales of unmanned aerial systems, as the Pentagon calls such drones, said Richard Genaille, deputy director of the Pentagon’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency. He did not name them.

Not enough is reported about these cowardly weapons that are being increasingly used by these so called "keepers of peace" nations against this so called "war on terror".

Actual Logo found on US Military Drones.



The Nazi's were condemned for using the V1 bomb to terrorise London civilians during WW2 as these devices killed indiscriminately wherever they landed. The only difference between the V1 and US armed military drone is that one is an unmanned total loss device while the other is an unmanned device that can be reloaded again.

The VI flying bomb gave adequate warning from the sound of its pulse jet engine cutting out giving you those vital seconds to run for cover. The Military drone flies virtually silently overhead and dose not.

According to a news source 70% of drone strikes in Pakistan over the last three years included innocent civilian targets which proves the inaccuracy of these devices.

The US reduce that claim to 30% which is in itself an excessively high figure. From a conflict of interest point of view I would certainly not believe American figures as this is the very country that is trying to market these devices.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iI-yroqQiRo

A drone treatise by Zen Gardner dramatized by the amazing, talented Snordelhans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69u-a7R5kTc

Northrop Grumman Corp chief executive Wes Bush praised the Obama administration for what he described as "significant moves to boost arms exports", but voiced frustration at delays in codifying them in a new export policy.

The image below is NOT propaganda.



http://www.zengardner.com/warlords-in-drone-frenzy-global-rollout-planned/

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The image below is NOT propaganda.

Yes it is.
Most of your claims in the article you're stealing is.

If it's not propaganda, what purpose does the picture serve?

Tzar Chasm

Anyone able to find a list if the 66 countries

Brown Bomber

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

Anyone able to find a list if the 66 countries

If they do that list will show the true "axis of evil".

drunkmonkey

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If they do that list will show the true "axis of evil".

We're on it I presume. Seriously should be a law against drones. Most evil killing machine ever.

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

Yes it is.
Most of your claims in the article you're stealing is.

If it's not propaganda, what purpose does the picture serve?

A picture says a thousand words.

The image clearly depicts the association of Obama with the military drone.

Something which cannot be denied or disputed.

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

A picture says a thousand words.

Yes as a picture more easily illicit an emotion and irrational response.
Like propaganda is meant to.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The image clearly depicts the association of Obama with the military drone.

Something which cannot be denied or disputed.

So why use a picture instead of facts?
Is it because the facts are not as shocking and attention grabbing as you would like them to be, hence you have to spice up the news article you are plagiarising?

Tzar Chasm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If they do that list will show the true "axis of evil".

We're on it I presume. Seriously should be a law against drones. Most evil killing machine ever.

When did we start using drones, I thought we only made a few bits or them

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

So why use a picture instead of facts?
Is it because the facts are not as shocking and attention grabbing as you would like them to be, hence you have to spice up the news article you are plagiarising?

The facts are far more shocking than the picture. Obama's drones have killed numerous civilians including women and children. Obama's drones have targeted and executed US citizens, including children without trial. Obama's drones have targetted funerals. Obama's drones have killed and attacked people then strategically returned when others have gone to their aid. War crimes all.

Doesn't any of that bother you?

Brown Bomber

drunkmonkey wrote: »

We're on it I presume. Seriously should be a law against drones. Most evil killing machine ever.

I would expect that most of the list would include the US's banana republic client states run by friendly tyrant dictators. It's a scam to turn regular US taxpayers hard earned money into extra zeros into the accounts of Lockheed Martin etc. The client states receives US aid, the dictator and cronies pocket a tidy sum, then the state purchases hardware from the US arms manufacturers to kill their own people with.

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

So why use a picture instead of facts?


Is it because the facts are not as shocking and attention grabbing as you would like them to be, hence you have to spice up the news article you are plagiarising?

Here's some recent drone media facts.

Obama orders ‘sharp increase’ in drone strikes: Report

Obama To Sign Bill Authorizing 30,000 SPY Drones To Fly Over AMERICA

Death from above: US police drone may fire tasers, rubber bullets

Police drones to be equipped with non-lethal weapons?

Drone Program Aims To 'Accelerate' Use Of Unmanned Aircraft By Police

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The facts are far more shocking than the picture.

So then what is the point of the picture other than propaganda?
What about the other twistings and dishonestys in Rtdh's plagerised article?
Why does he have to use those?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Obama's drones have killed numerous civilians including women and children. Obama's drones have targeted and executed US citizens, including children without trial. Obama's drones have targetted funerals. Obama's drones have killed and attacked people then strategically returned when others have gone to their aid. War crimes all.

What specifically makes using drones a war crime over using manned jets other other methods?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Doesn't any of that bother you?

Well the thing is since you and Rtdh and the authors of the article he stole all have to use dishonest emotive arguments like the above, I'm not sure if there is something to be bothered about in the first place.

If the facts are so shocking and worrysome, why do you and others have to rely on lies and propaganda?

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Here's some recent drone media facts.

Please address the points I put to you. Dodging the questions by posting a ream of articles you did not read does not address the problems with your position.

Why did you post your little picture if it was not to get an emotional, irrational response?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

If the facts are so shocking and worrysome, why do you and others have to rely on lies and propaganda?

WTF are you talking about? I never lied or used propoganda. I educated you FFS.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

WTF are you talking about? I never lied or used propoganda. I educated you FFS.

No not directly, but you used a dishonest appeal to emotion:

Doesn't any of that bother you?

And you seem to have no issue with Rdth's and the author of the article use of propaganda, and since you thanked the post, you seem to support it.

If this is not the case, could you at least clarify as much, or at least make an attempt to address the question I posed rather than feigning offence as an excuse to dodge it?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

No not directly, but you used a dishonest appeal to emotion:

Total nonsense. Everything I stated was facts. I asked you if these FACTS bothered you.

Otherwise you'll have to give examples of the "propoganda".

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

Please address the points I put to you. Dodging the questions by posting a ream of articles you did not read does not address the problems with your position.

Why did you post your little picture if it was not to get an emotional, irrational response?

What else do you want me to do, spell them all out for you.

Back on that other thing.

Having Obama's head superimposed on a US drone picture is no different than having Adolph Hitler's head superimposed on a Nazi V1 flying bomb image. Both people are directly associated with these weapons of which they are two of the one thing. One is just a modern and more versatile version of the other.

The History book on the shelf always repeats itself.

Air Launched Doodlebugs. Hitlers V1 Missiles.



Obama's Killer drone & Eye on America.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Total nonsense. Everything I stated was facts. I asked you if these FACTS bothered you.

And that's an appeal to emotion. Whether or not those "facts" bothered me is not relevant. But you use that to make it seem like my position is some how uncaring.
It's a dishonest tactic.

Further given you posting history or using such dishonest tactics, avoiding questions that you can't answer and twisting stuff you suit your prefered world view, I don't buy that your facts are accurate.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Otherwise you'll have to give examples of the "propoganda".

Umm, maybe the first picture I've been referring to this entire time?
The videos that Rdth copy pasted?
His dishonest comparison to the Nazis?

What was the purpose of these things if not to illicit an emotional response?
Do you think they are honest things to use to "enhance the facts"?

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

What else do you want me to do, spell them all out for you.

Back on that other thing.

Having Obama's head superimposed on a US drone picture is no different than having Adolph Hitler's head superimposed on a Nazi V1 flying bomb image. Both are two of the one thing, ones just a modern and more versatile version of the other.

The History book on the shelf always repeats itself.

Except that one is a book cover intended to catch the eye and sell itself.
You aren't designing a book cover so what was the purpose of the image other than propaganda?

humanji

Run_to_da_hills, you've been warned far too many times over using propaganda pictures on here. Use words or use nothing at all. You won't be warned again. Everyone, stick to the topic at hand.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

And that's an appeal to emotion. Whether or not those "facts" bothered me is not relevant. But you use that to make it seem like my position is some how uncaring.
It's a dishonest tactic.

More nonsense. I asked you a simple question which you are free to answer. The only person making you look "uncaring" is you - by refusing to answer a simple question.

King Mob wrote: »

Further given you posting history or using such dishonest tactics, avoiding questions that you can't answer and twisting stuff you suit your prefered world view,

Bull****.

King Mob wrote: »

I don't buy that your facts are accurate.

Debunk them then.

King Mob wrote: »

Umm, maybe the first picture I've been referring to this entire time?

I have no problem with the graphic. There is nobody better suited to have in an image of an unmanned killing machine than Obama.

King Mob wrote: »

The videos that Rdth copy pasted?

No comment. Haven't and won't be watching them.

King Mob wrote: »

His dishonest comparison to the Nazis?

It wasn't a "dishonest comparison to the Nazis" it was an apt comparison with Obama and his flying killing machines to Hitler's.

King Mob wrote: »

What was the purpose of these things if not to illicit an emotional response?

To make a webpage more attractive to a reader.

King Mob wrote: »

Do you think they are honest things to use to "enhance the facts"?

They don't "enhance the facts". I've already explained to you they don't even begin to tell of the true horrors of Obama's drone wars.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

More nonsense. I asked you a simple question which you are free to answer. The only person making you look "uncaring" is you - by refusing to answer a simple question.

So what relevance did the question actually have?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Debunk them then.

Again, not how it works as you know. You are welcome to provide evidence for them, but experience with how you have tried to do so in the past tells me you will use dishonest tactics, twisting facts and ignoring points you can't address.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I have no problem with the graphic. There is nobody better suited to have in an image of an unmanned killing machine than Obama.

No comment. Haven't and won't be watching them.

So why is it ok for Rdths to use propaganda?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It wasn't a "dishonest comparison to the Nazis" it was an apt comparison with Obama and his flying killing machines to Hitler's.

It is a dishonest comparison for a number of reasons.
First the V1s and V2s were used to target civilian populations as they were not accurate enough to target military or industrial sites. The Drones are not used in that way either by design or intention.
Further he claims that between 30% and 70% of all drone attacks involved civilian causalities (with no references of course) as if that was worse that the v1s or v2 who's attacks resulted in civilian deaths for every hit.
Then he claims that the V1s gave a warning as if it was intentionally designed into the weapon. It wasn't.

The comparison is simply a cheap dirty tactic in place of any actual argument.
Again, why do you have no problem with him using such a tactic when the facts are enough?
Don't you think he's detracting from the reality of the problem as you see it by doing stuff like this?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

To make a webpage more attractive to a reader.

Lol, lamest excuse yet.
If it was just to make it more attractive why is it at the bottom of the page?
Why do they need to make it more attractive?
And what exactly is attractive about it?

It's a propaganda picture, pure and simple.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Again, not how it works as you know. You are welcome to provide evidence for them, but experience with how you have tried to do so in the past tells me you will use dishonest tactics, twisting facts and ignoring points you can't address.

Obama terror drones: CIA tactics in Pakistan include targeting rescuers and funerals

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/02/04/obama-terror-drones-cia-tactics-in-pakistan-include-targeting-rescuers-and-funerals/

I assume that this link settles the issue?

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Obama terror drones: CIA tactics in Pakistan include targeting rescuers and funerals

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/02/04/obama-terror-drones-cia-tactics-in-pakistan-include-targeting-rescuers-and-funerals/

I assume that this link settles the issue?

No it doesn't.
Even if I accept what your link claims (which I don't) there's still a bunch of points you made that you have not backed up and there is still points which I made and you've yet to address.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

No it doesn't.
Even if I accept what your link claims (which I don't) there's still a bunch of points you made that you have not backed up and there is still points which I made and you've yet to address.

Forget it then. You ask for evidence dismiss it instantly - evidence I might add which is the most comprehensive available - without reason and don't' produce any counter-arguments. In fact you don't even have a position other than you don't like images with Obama and drones. You won't even condemn killing children. It's a waste of time. Take Care...

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Forget it then. You ask for evidence dismiss it instantly - evidence I might add which is the most comprehensive available - without reason and don't' produce any counter-arguments.

I'm dismissing it not for no reason, I'm only putting in as much effort as you are.
You made several claims which you have not supported.
I have made several points which you ignored.

You supply evidence for one of your claims and declared the issue settled while ignoring the entirety of my post.

Your outrage once again is feigned.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In fact you don't even have a position other than you don't like images with Obama and drones.

I have several points, all of which you ignored and are plainly readable.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You won't even condemn killing children. It's a waste of time. Take Care...

And again you are resorting to silly, dishonest tactics, which only makes it seem like you position is hollow.

Brown Bomber

I knew it would be like this:

1. I make a claim
2. you don't accept it
3. I provide evidence
4. nothing changes
5. I make another claim
6. you don't accept it
7. I provide evidence
8. nothing changes
9. I make another claim
10. .... and on and on and on...................... This isn't a discussion/debate

endacl

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The facts are far more shocking than the picture. Obama's drones have killed numerous civilians including women and children. Obama's drones have targeted and executed US citizens, including children without trial. Obama's drones have targetted funerals. Obama's drones have killed and attacked people then strategically returned when others have gone to their aid. War crimes all.

Doesn't any of that bother you?

No.

Brown Bomber

endacl wrote: »

No.

"No" what?

endacl

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Obama terror drones: CIA tactics in Pakistan include targeting rescuers and funerals

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/02/04/obama-terror-drones-cia-tactics-in-pakistan-include-targeting-rescuers-and-funerals/

I assume that this link settles the issue?

Why are links always needed to settle 'issues'? Why can't debate and reason do the job?

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I knew it would be like this:

1. I make a claim
2. you don't accept it
3. I provide evidence
4. nothing changes
5. I make another claim
6. you don't accept it
7. I provide evidence
8. nothing changes
9. I make another claim
10. .... and on and on and on...................... This isn't a discussion/debate

And again, you've missed the points I made in the previous post.
(Which is probably why you did not quote it.)

I said that I was not dismissing your evidence, I was only putting in as much effort as you did.

You supplied evidence for one of your claims while leaving othes claims you made unsupported and points I made (and have been making repeatedly) unaddressed.

If you are simply going to ignore the vast majority of what I write, who's fault is it that there is no discussion?

Brown Bomber

endacl wrote: »

Why are links always needed to settle 'issues'? Why can't debate and reason do the job?

Because all the debate and reason is worth **** all compared to a comprehensive, on the ground investigation.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

And again, you've missed the points I made in the previous post.
(Which is probably why you did not quote it.)

I said that I was not dismissing your evidence, I was only putting in as much effort as you did.

You supplied evidence for one of your claims while leaving othes claims you made unsupported and points I made (and have been making repeatedly) unaddressed.

If you are simply going to ignore the vast majority of what I write, who's fault is it that there is no discussion?

okay, but this is seriously the last time. I'll highlight in red the points i've made that are covered in the investigation

The facts are far more shocking than the picture. Obama's drones have killed numerous civilians including women and children.
Obama's drones have targeted and executed US citizens, including children without trial.
Obama's drones have targetted funerals.
Obama's drones have killed and attacked people then strategically returned when others have gone to their aid.
War crimes all.

For what's not covered in the previous link see:
Execution by secret WH committee

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/06/execution_by_secret_wh_committee/


The killing of Awlaki’s 16-year-old son

Extreme secrecy, as usual, shrouds this act, but it underscores how often the U.S. uses violence around the world

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/the_killing_of_awlakis_16_year_old_son/

endacl

Brown Bomber wrote: »

"No" what?

'No' it doesn't bother me that drones are used. They're cheaper, and they each keep at least one young man or woman out of the warzone. The soldiers didn't ask to be there. The attacks will go ahead regardless. At least one young pilot will be safely miles away, and possibly acting with a clearer head by virtue of being safely miles away. The operations are ****ty, but the young men and women sent to to the ****ty work didn't ask to be there.

I've no problem with drones. I do with the war. I do with the foreign policy that caused the war. I do with the leaders who sent them. The drones, not so much.

endacl

Brown Bomber wrote: »

okay, but this is seriously the last time. I'll highlight in red the points i've made that are covered in the investigation

The facts are far more shocking than the picture. Obama's drones have killed numerous civilians including women and children.
Obama's drones have targeted and executed US citizens, including children without trial.
Obama's drones have targetted funerals.
Obama's drones have killed and attacked people then strategically returned when others have gone to their aid.
War crimes all.

For what's not covered in the previous link see:
Execution by secret WH committee

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/06/execution_by_secret_wh_committee/


The killing of Awlaki’s 16-year-old son

Extreme secrecy, as usual, shrouds this act, but it underscores how often the U.S. uses violence around the world

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/the_killing_of_awlakis_16_year_old_son/

Why all the different colours? It looks like a madzine pamphlet.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

okay, but this is seriously the last time. I'll highlight in red the points i've made that are covered in the investigation

And again, you've not even addressed any of my points.
Why should I bother to look at the evidence you are provide and take the time to discuss it when you are avoiding the majority of what I am writing?

If I did read of your links and posted about them, you would ignore what I did write.

But now you are just start to use my posts to write blogposts instead of discussion again, and replying would just encourage you further.

endacl

endacl wrote: »

'No' it doesn't bother me that drones are used. They're cheaper, and they each keep at least one young man or woman out of the warzone. The soldiers didn't ask to be there. The attacks will go ahead regardless. At least one young pilot will be safely miles away, and possibly acting with a clearer head by virtue of being safely miles away. The operations are ****ty, but the young men and women sent to to the ****ty work didn't ask to be there.

I've no problem with drones. I do with the war. I do with the foreign policy that caused the war. I do with the leaders who sent them. The drones, not so much.

For reference, even though I still maintain it's irrelevant, thid is almost exactly my feelings on whether it bothers me or not.

endacl

I'm open to education here. Why Obama's drones, not Clinton's or Bush's? Obama didn't invent the drone. He wasn't the first to order their use.

Fill me in, conspiracy conkers folks!

Brown Bomber

endacl wrote: »

I'm open to education here. Why Obama's drones, not Clinton's or Bush's? Obama didn't invent the drone. He wasn't the first to order their use.

Fill me in, conspiracy conkers folks!

Obama has killed subtantially more innocent people with drones than Bush or Clinton, but don't let that bother as long as the brave G.I.'s are killing children like it's a computer game.

Brown Bomber

endacl wrote: »

' I do with the war. I do with the foreign policy that caused the war.

What are talking about? There is no "war" with Somalia, Yemen or Pakistan.

Why all the different colours? It looks like a madzine pamphlet.

If you pay more attention you'd know.

endacl

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What are talking about? There is no "war" with Somalia, Yemen or Pakistan.

If you pay more attention you'd know.

Neither an answer of course....

Ah well. I'll try again tomorrow. G'night.

Run_to_da_hills

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Obama has killed subtantially more innocent people with drones than Bush or Clinton, but don't let that bother as long as the brave G.I.'s are killing children like it's a computer game.

Obama is also pushing the drone as his favourite tool on his Global power take over quest AKA UN NATO, next he will turn them upon his own people.

Did you know that some guy invented an App that notified its user of every one of every drone strike that took place on foreign soil? , ie Pakistan, Somalia or wherever?

The APP was promptly pulled off the market because it was deemed "objectionable" What a dirty lie from the Obama Administration, It was pulled because it exposed the truth about these dastardly devices.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/aug/30/apple-blocks-us-drone-strike-app

old_aussie

These cowardly weapons are used to kill those brave terrorist who use men, women and children suicide bombers to kill many other innocent women and children in the name of their god.

The US has no right to kill those terrorist and their supporters using such evil weapons.

As far as the most evil killing machines ever(drones), I think hitlers gas chambers were pretty evil.

Run_to_da_hills

old_aussie wrote: »

These cowardly weapons are used to kill those brave terrorist who use men, women and children suicide bombers to kill many other innocent women and children in the name of their god.

The US has no right to kill those terrorist and their supporters using such evil weapons.

American propaganda AKA Main Stream Media will tell you that any woman and children killed with these strikes were suicide bombers on various missions. Those walking their kids to school carrying their bags on their backs would be particularly at risk.

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

American propaganda AKA Main Stream Media will tell you that any woman and children killed with these strikes were suicide bombers on various missions. Those walking their kids to school carrying their bags on their backs would be particularly at risk.

Provide a single example of this.

Brown Bomber

old_aussie wrote: »

These cowardly weapons are used to kill those brave terrorist who use men, women and children suicide bombers to kill many other innocent women and children in the name of their god.

It's depressing how little you know yet you still adovcate death and destruction.

You start here and listen to the words of someone who has actually visited these countries
http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/04/29/obamas-death-panels-jeremy-scahill-at-the-drone-summit-video/

reprazant

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Obama has killed subtantially more innocent people with drones than Bush or Clinton, but don't let that bother as long as the brave G.I.'s are killing children like it's a computer game.

So Obama's drones are far worse than all the women and children killed by missiles by Clinton or either of the Bushes? Or any other country/group in the world for that matter.

Run_to_da_hills

reprazant wrote: »

So Obama's drones are far worse than all the women and children killed by missiles by Clinton or either of the Bushes? Or any other country/group in the world for that matter.

Its the cowardly method in which they operate.

Ie drones are not operated by real soldiers but instead by collage drop-outs that have spent their whole childhood behind computer screens playing Command and Conquer and what ever else.

All they see is an image on the ground if it looks suspicious the just pick it off, no questions asked, no trial. Plundering nations for Global power gain in the guise of NATO / UN even where there is no official war declared.

weisses

endacl wrote: »

'No' it doesn't bother me that drones are used. They're cheaper, and they each keep at least one young man or woman out of the warzone. The soldiers didn't ask to be there. The attacks will go ahead regardless. At least one young pilot will be safely miles away, and possibly acting with a clearer head by virtue of being safely miles away. The operations are ****ty, but the young men and women sent to to the ****ty work didn't ask to be there.

Bit over the top but it shows my concern when "operators" fly these things thinking its another perk in some FPS game

weisses

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

Anyone able to find a list if the 66 countries

Britain is one .....


65 to go

Jonny7

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Its the cowardly method in which they operate.

It's a logical method. You think they should strap bombs to kids and use that less "cowardly" method instead?

Ie drones are not operated by real soldiers but instead by collage drop-outs that have spent their whole childhood behind computer screens playing Command and Conquer and what ever else.

They are operated by specialists.

All they see is an image on the ground if it looks suspicious the just pick it off, no questions asked, no trial. Plundering nations for Global power gain in the guise of NATO / UN even where there is no official war declared.

There are rules of engagment.