...infamously used extensively to assassinate and kill people overseas, will in the very near future be used by local law enforcement on U.S. citizens as the primary targets.
So stay tuned, and watch out for a drone over your very own backyard soon.
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
Which citizens are you referring to, the ones who may well have placed themselves in this position or the ones minding their own business?
Posted by claus3600 (Member # 19584) on :
@Grumman or the ones minding their own business?
As I read that, reports of dead civilians, or 'collateral damage', came to mind...
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
I see you overlooked this: ''will in the very near future be used by local law enforcement on U.S. citizens as the primary targets.''
Are you suggesting the U.S. government using drones will attack a group of picnickers to get at a *suspect* in Harrisburg, PA for example? Wouldn't it be more cost efficient to send in those local enforcement officers to pull it off?
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Under a police state will it matter. What do you define as "Minding your own Bis" is someone wrongly suspected of a crime who might be killed by these things Minding his own bis??
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
''Under a police state will it matter. What do you define as "Minding your own Bis" is someone wrongly suspected of a crime who might be killed by these things Minding his own bis??''
Context here is the U.S. using drones in your backyard to spy on you probably because the individual has brought attention to him or herself--not because the family is picnicking in the backyard, minding their own business. But, if you have a police state then there should be no need to have drones in your backyard would it?
If your business position or ideology puts you in a position that necessitates you not minding your business then who would you expect to see to it that you do?
Will Iraq, Iran, Israel, Yemen, Germany, South Africa, Zimbabwe, or any number of countries, accept those who won't mind their own business--depending on the degree of not minding your own business?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Which citizens are you referring to, the ones who may well have placed themselves in this position or the ones minding their own business?
Which citizens do local police keep their eyes on? Any or just specific, or yet both?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: ''Under a police state will it matter. What do you define as "Minding your own Bis" is someone wrongly suspected of a crime who might be killed by these things Minding his own bis??''
Context here is the U.S. using drones in your backyard to spy on you probably because the individual has brought attention to him or herself--not because the family is picnicking in the backyard, minding their own business. But, if you have a police state then there should be no need to have drones in your backyard would it?
For reminders, I believe I did say "Unmanned Attack Drones", which have "infamously" been "used extensively to assassinate and kill people overseas"; not merely "spy" drones.
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
''Which citizens do local police keep their eyes on? Any or just specific, or yet both?
Since the street one block east of me and about two blocks south has *known* drug activity and occasional violence, that is shootings, for several years now, I can attribute police activity in my neighborhood to individuals needing to be surveilled. And yes police actually do patrol any city street in America as a matter of course whether crime or suspicious activity is involved or not. With this in mind why do you see a need to say ''or both.'' Maybe you mean the police shouldn't keep an eye on the 'other' citizens who have been victimized by the thugs--to prevent this from happening again? Isn't this type of benign surveillance beneficial to the citizen? Then again you may not even mean the lowly criminal in the cities. You may mean higher up the scale? Like some of the boys who wear the white shirt and ties to work--the kind who manage to much finance?
''For reminders, I believe I did say "Unmanned Attack Drones", which have "infamously" been "used extensively to assassinate and kill people overseas"; not merely "spy" drones.''
Fine. With your emphasis then you are in effect saying the family that is picnicking by the lake, minding their own business have cause for alarm?
If this family gathering has caused some in power to see a need for surveillance then isn't it likely there are some in that gathering who haven't been ''minding their own business? Thus they have attracted attention from those who *do* want them to mind their own business. Does this mean that drones will be used, in this country, to kill U.S citizens in the future. I don't think so. On the other hand this may mean things have gotten out of control for this to happen.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
I don't understand what you are trying to get at. Unmanned Drones as far as I know are used to do more than spy, why the Gov. can spy on citizens without unmanned Drones, they have Wireless Wiretapping without a warrent and a whole host of Federal laws.
What Im saying is why should local police be allowed to used unmanned Drones given their record.
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: ''Under a police state will it matter. What do you define as "Minding your own Bis" is someone wrongly suspected of a crime who might be killed by these things Minding his own bis??''
Context here is the U.S. using drones in your backyard to spy on you probably because the individual has brought attention to him or herself--not because the family is picnicking in the backyard, minding their own business. But, if you have a police state then there should be no need to have drones in your backyard would it?
If your business position or ideology puts you in a position that necessitates you not minding your business then who would you expect to see to it that you do?
Will Iraq, Iran, Israel, Yemen, Germany, South Africa, Zimbabwe, or any number of countries, accept those who won't mind their own business--depending on the degree of not minding your own business?
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Since the street one block east of me and about two blocks south has *known* drug activity and occasional violence, that is shootings, for several years now, I can attribute police activity in my neighborhood to individuals needing to be surveilled.
So Im guessing you attribute this violence to Drug Activity. So the question should be what is the solution to ending the violence in your neighborhood?? More Police activity??
quote:Maybe you mean the police shouldn't keep an eye on the 'other' citizens who have been victimized by the thugs--to prevent this from happening again? Isn't this type of benign surveillance beneficial to the citizen? Then again you may not even mean the lowly criminal in the cities.
Is there not better solutions, more direct solutions to the Drug Crimes than allowing a bunch of corrupt people calling themselves Police have the same technology as our Millitary??
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
JCMJ:
''I don't understand what you are trying to get at. Unmanned Drones as far as I know are used to do more than spy, why the Gov. can spy on citizens without unmanned Drones, they have Wireless Wiretapping without a warrent and a whole host of Federal laws.
''What Im saying is why should local police be allowed to used unmanned Drones given their record.''
I will agree Drones can be painfully non specific. That's why I said earlier (above) local law enforcement could handle those who don't mind their own business. You might want to refresh yourself on who started this topic about Drones.
''So Im guessing you attribute this violence to Drug Activity.''
The police have already attributed the violence to drug activity in that neighborhood within the neighborhood. I know you are aware that drugs breed violence right?
''So the question should be what is the solution to ending the violence in your neighborhood?? More Police activity??''
If the people who live in close proximity to the drug activity went to the dealers and said would you guys mind taking your business elsewhere, do you think that would have any meaningful impact on the dealers? Since the dealers probably wouldn't listen anyway then isn't the next best thing to do is have ''more police activity''? Or do you think a sociologist is the answer to what we're talking about now?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman:
With this in mind why do you see a need to say ''or both.'' Maybe you mean the police shouldn't keep an eye on the 'other' citizens who have been victimized by the thugs--to prevent this from happening again? Isn't this type of benign surveillance beneficial to the citizen? Then again you may not even mean the lowly criminal in the cities. You may mean higher up the scale? Like some of the boys who wear the white shirt and ties to work--the kind who manage to much finance?
Does this answer mean that you did not realize that my post was a question posed to you, for you to answer?
quote:''For reminders, I believe I did say "Unmanned Attack Drones", which have "infamously" been "used extensively to assassinate and kill people overseas"; not merely "spy" drones.''
Fine. With your emphasis then you are in effect saying the family that is picnicking by the lake, minding their own business have cause for alarm?
If I see an attackmilitary drone, used to kill and maim people overseas, hovering over my head, then yes, I'd say personally, that would be cause for alarm.
quote: Does this mean that drones will be used, in this country, to kill U.S citizens in the future. I don't think so. On the other hand this may mean things have gotten out of control for this to happen.
I guess that is why they are attack military drones, as opposed to unarmed surveillance drones, so that they will not be used to kill citizens in the future?
The U.S. ruling elite gotta love people who think like you do, wouldn't they?
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
The Explorer's comment:
''Which citizens do local police keep their eyes on? Any or just specific, or yet both?
I wrote in response:
[quote[/i]With this in mind why do you see a need to say ''or both.'' Maybe you mean the police shouldn't keep an eye on the 'other' citizens who have been victimized by the thugs--to prevent this from happening again? Isn't this type of benign surveillance beneficial to the citizen? Then again you may not even mean the lowly criminal in the cities. You may mean higher up the scale? Like some of the boys who wear the white shirt and ties to work--the kind who manage to much finance?[/i]
...then Explorer...
''Does this answer mean that you did not realize that my post was a question posed to you, for you to answer?
Feel free to not see a response as you see fit so that you may carry this debate further. You will be aware repetition will be handled with same.
The Explorer says,
''If I see an attack military drone, used to kill and maim people overseas, hovering over my head, then yes, I'd say personally, that would be cause for alarm.''
...then you aren't minding your own business.
Are you suggesting you don't know how to do this? Or is it you refuse to do it simply because America allows you to do it?
''The U.S. ruling elite gotta love people who think like you do, wouldn't they?''
If I was part of the ruling elite then yes they would like me--until I didn't mind my own business.
Quick non sequitur for you (it may not be). If you had to change anything in the U.S. government what would it be to suit *your* needs since you do work in the U.S.? Keep in mind I'm not talking about the U.S. meddling in other peoples' affairs around the world.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
quote:If the people who live in close proximity to the drug activity went to the dealers and said would you guys mind taking your business elsewhere, do you think that would have any meaningful impact on the dealers? Since the dealers probably wouldn't listen anyway then isn't the next best thing to do is have ''more police activity''? Or do you think a sociologist is the answer to what we're talking about now?
I think that to end the violence of Drugs or to reduce the violence, the gov. should legalize Drug use plain and simple. This is what I was driving at.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman:
...then Explorer...
''Does this answer mean that you did not realize that my post was a question posed to you, for you to answer?
Feel free to not see a response as you see fit so that you may carry this debate further. You will be aware repetition will be handled with same.
Remember, I was the questioner, and you were supposed to be the target respondent. Putting words in my mouth, purportedly in the form of thoughtless questions, does not constitute answering my question, Grums.
quote:
The Explorer says,
''If I see an attack military drone, used to kill and maim people overseas, hovering over my head, then yes, I'd say personally, that would be cause for alarm.''
...then you aren't minding your own business.
Are you suggesting you don't know how to do this? Or is it you refuse to do it simply because America allows you to do it?
Your nonsensical reply suggests that you don't know how policing basically works. Since when does the police give anyone a pass on keeping an eye on him/her, because he/she is supposedly "minding your own business"? Repeating: The intention is to use killer drones for local policing.
The last I checked, even criminals think that they are "minding their own business" when handling their "criminal" activity. What does "minding your own business" constitute anyhow? Give me details.
quote: ''The U.S. ruling elite gotta love people who think like you do, wouldn't they?''
If I was part of the ruling elite then yes they would like me--until I didn't mind my own business.
Quick non sequitur for you (it may not be). If you had to change anything in the U.S. government what would it be to suit *your* needs since you do work in the U.S.? Keep in mind I'm not talking about the U.S. meddling in other peoples' affairs around the world.
Actually, you got it wrong. I did not say they "gotta love" you for "being part of the elite" club, but rather, for the way "you think"...my polite way of saying, that they like the naively gullible.
As for your non-sequiturical question, how do you know I'm in the U.S. to begin with?
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
The Explorer:
''Since when does the police give anyone a pass on keeping an eye on him/her, because he/she is supposedly "minding your own business"?
Are you saying the police spy on law abiding citizens? For what reason would they do this, if they, the police, ''knew'' they were minding their own business? I'm not talking about your Drone use right now. My response followed directly from something said above. But wait, some cops are voyeurs so you have a point there. Even at that, the cop will be spying because of the voyeurism aspect, not because someone isn't minding their own business... a contextual minding their own business that is. Keep this in mind.
The Explorer:
''Repeating: The intention is to use killer drones for local policing.''
It seems you are drifting from intention to fact. Okay then. I am aware, as noted above but earlier, there has been talk about using surveillance Drones on the southern border of the U.S. to combat drugs, and maybe illegal immigrants. Again, how does this translate into your ''backyard'' scenario? Is your use of that word a rhetorical device meant to convey the border region or is it you actually think, with a clear head, that I have a drone, in my 'near future', your use of the words, to look forward to, in my backyard?
''The last I checked, even criminals think that they are "minding their own business" when handling their "criminal" activity. What does "minding your own business" constitute anyhow? Give me details.''
Strange way of putting it but yeah, I guess a criminal would say he's minding his own business.
Then the criminal is free to continue on in his manner of minding his business?
The Explorer said:
''The U.S. ruling elite gotta love people who think like you do, wouldn't they?''
I came back with: ''If I was part of the ruling elite then yes they would like me--until I didn't mind my own business.''
Then you, with:
''Actually, you got it wrong. I did not say they "gotta love" you for "being part of the elite" club, but rather, for the way "you think"...my polite way of saying, that they like the naively gullible.''
If I thought like the ''elite'' therefore minding *their* business in the process, then shouldn't it follow they wouldn't like me if I left the room? Wouldn't I be taking my thoughts with me when I left? Could I not be trusted? Speaking of 'naively gullible' which one of the group in the room is more gullible than the other?
''As for your non-sequiturical question, how do you know I'm in the U.S. to begin with?''
Talking to another poster a couple of months ago you mentioned paying taxes, contextually suggesting you were in the U.S. But if you ask me to prove it I can't. In this case you'll be home free, in the rhetorical sense, not actually free from the comment.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: The Explorer:
''Since when does the police give anyone a pass on keeping an eye on him/her, because he/she is supposedly "minding your own business"?
Are you saying the police spy on law abiding citizens?
So you are saying that you don't know what a police is?
quote:The Explorer:
''Repeating: The intention is to use killer drones for local policing.''
It seems you are drifting from intention to fact.
It seems that you have not been paying attention to the opening notes!
Now pay attention, 'cause I can't keep repeating myself: The use of killer drones is underway!
It is supposedly not "officially" implemented yet, although there are allegations that said drones have already been in use without public disclosure by local police enforcement.
quote:Then the criminal is free to continue on in his manner of minding his business?
Does this mean that you are now incapable of clarifying what constitutes "minding your own business"?
quote:The Explorer said:
''The U.S. ruling elite gotta love people who think like you do, wouldn't they?''
I came back with: ''If I was part of the ruling elite then yes they would like me--until I didn't mind my own business.''
Then you, with:
''Actually, you got it wrong. I did not say they "gotta love" you for "being part of the elite" club, but rather, for the way "you think"...my polite way of saying, that they like the naively gullible.''
If I thought like the ''elite'' therefore minding *their* business in the process, then shouldn't it follow they wouldn't like me if I left the room? Wouldn't I be taking my thoughts with me when I left? Could I not be trusted?
This pointless rambling only reinforces what I've said about your intelligence, because I already clarified what I meant by said post you are hereby replying to, and you still managed to be puzzled.
quote: Speaking of 'naively gullible' which one of the group in the room is more gullible than the other?
Easy. You! Anybody who thinks that killer drones are not going to be used for well, killing, has got to have some loose screws in the head.
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
Me: Are you saying the police spy on law abiding citizens?
Then Explorer drastically shifts meaning by eliminating pertinent parts of context.
''So you are saying that you don't know what a police is?''
Go head own wit' yo' bad self. You need to solve this problem yourself; leave me out of your shenanigans.
The Explorer:
''Repeating: The intention is to use killer drones for local policing.''
''Now pay attention, 'cause I can't keep repeating myself: The use of killer drones is underway!
''It is supposedly not "officially" implemented yet, although there are allegations that said drones have already been in use without public disclosure by local police enforcement.''
C'mown man, why would authorities post Drone information to the public if they're surveilling someone they consider interesting? That makes no sense.
And I do believe you are talking about Arizona and maybe Texas? If so then there's no argument here because it had been in the news a few weeks ago. And I will redirect you to a comment made by me earlier in this topic concerning the border area. By the way post a link so I can read it. It seems you have much more information than the local newspaper which also uses national news hookups.
I said: ''Then the criminal is free to continue on in his manner of minding his business?''
The explorer follows with:
''Does this mean that you are now incapable of clarifying what constitutes "minding your own business"?
Look at this guy up in here not understanding what he reads about minding your own business. Priceless.
The Explorer says,
Anybody who thinks that killer drones are not going to be used for well, killing, has got to have some loose screws in the head.
First off you just committed a logical fallcy. You are saying I disagree with that statement in terms of what Drones are capable of? Is this your intent?
Now here's the problem with you and me. You think killer drones will be used on a routine basis in the U.S. in the near future. I say no to your ''in your backyard'' proposition. I say they will probably be used ''on the border '' as the situation stands, as reported in the news, for surveillance. If killer Drones are used to kill, and not surveillance, then this means the local police and Swat units will be notified that this issue doesn't concern them. Why bother with those units when the killing capacity of a Drone--which has no discerning, collateral damage conscience--can be used instead. Do you see anything wrong with the preceding bolded letters statement? I do, but in specific terms.
Now, I don't see this wildeyed ''killer drone ''attack scenario happening under the present circumstances. All you have to support your imaginings and speculation and highly subjective position is your malfunctioning intuition which has it origins in places like Yemen and Pakistan and Afghanistan. (See U.S. Drone attacks in the news for a refresher course.)
However--to sit down with you and actually entertain your bs--if there comes a time when radical cells *of any kind* in this country *have put authorities on sufficient alert as to their intentions,* then yes, I will agree attack/killer drones will be used in the capacity they were designed for. If, if, there comes such a time then who is going to moan and wail about using drones? You of course, and others, who won't mind their own business.
Finally, in case this sped by you, that paragraph is full of a ''mind your own business'' explanation.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Me: Are you saying the police spy on law abiding citizens?
Then Explorer drastically shifts meaning by eliminating pertinent parts of context.
''So you are saying that you don't know what a police is?''
You mean "parts of context" that are nothing more than a series of questions aimed at putting words in my mouth, while allowing you to deflect the question you should have been answering instead?
quote:
Go head own wit' yo' bad self. You need to solve this problem yourself; leave me out of your shenanigans.
You placed yourself in these "shenanigans" when you created them.
quote:The Explorer:
''Repeating: The intention is to use killer drones for local policing.''
''Now pay attention, 'cause I can't keep repeating myself: The use of killer drones is underway!
''It is supposedly not "officially" implemented yet, although there are allegations that said drones have already been in use without public disclosure by local police enforcement.''
C'mown man, why would authorities post Drone information to the public if they're surveilling someone they consider interesting? That makes no sense.
The question is, why are they going public now about using killer drones, that you keep confusing with just "surveillance" tasks.
Furthermore, the aforementioned allegations don't pertain to disclosure of the *specifics* of usage of these killer drones, but rather, merely that their usage had been ongoing for some time. Think, Grums.
quote:And I do believe you are talking about Arizona and maybe Texas? If so then there's no argument here because it had been in the news a few weeks ago. And I will redirect you to a comment made by me earlier in this topic concerning the border area. By the way post a link so I can read it. It seems you have much more information than the local newspaper which also uses national news hookups.
I did not say anything about "border patrol", which in any case, is handled by volunteer teams, paramilitary and military personnel; I spoke of local police enforcement. You know what that is, right?
quote:I said: ''Then the criminal is free to continue on in his manner of minding his business?''
The explorer follows with:
''Does this mean that you are now incapable of clarifying what constitutes "minding your own business"?
Look at this guy up in here not understanding what he reads about minding your own business. Priceless.
Interesting, when your tactics are turned on you, you begin to see how others view your posts. I understood that your "question" of a post was sarcastic in tone, but so was my response to it.
quote:The Explorer says,
Anybody who thinks that killer drones are not going to be used for well, killing, has got to have some loose screws in the head.
First off you just committed a logical fallcy. You are saying I disagree with that statement in terms of what Drones are capable of? Is this your intent?
Before you say something is a logical fallacy, make sure your follow up reflects why so. But no; you were apparently expressing your disagreement with any notion that local police would use these drones to kill citizens. Well, if the intention isn't to kill someone in the foreseeable future, then why are they using killer/strike drones that are part of the military inventory, rather than simply civil air-certified drones equipped with nothing else but surveillance cameras?
quote: Now here's the problem with you and me. You think killer drones will be used on a routine basis in the U.S. in the near future.
No more routine than police carrying tasers, rubber bullets, pepper spray or guns for that matter. You know, those "non-lethal" weapons that they reassure the public about.
quote: I say no to your ''in your backyard'' proposition. I say they will probably be used ''on the border '' as the situation stands, as reported in the news, for surveillance. If killer Drones are used to kill, and not surveillance, then this means the local police and Swat units will be notified that this issue doesn't concern them. Why bother with those units when the killing capacity of a Drone--which has no discerning, collateral damage conscience--can be used instead. Do you see anything wrong with the preceding bolded letters statement? I do, but in specific terms.
Now, I don't see this wildeyed ''killer drone ''attack scenario happening under the present circumstances. All you have to support your imaginings and speculation and highly subjective position is your malfunctioning intuition which has it origins in places like Yemen and Pakistan and Afghanistan. (See U.S. Drone attacks in the news for a refresher course.)
However--to sit down with you and actually entertain your bs--if there comes a time when radical cells *of any kind* in this country *have put authorities on sufficient alert as to their intentions,* then yes, I will agree attack/killer drones will be used in the capacity they were designed for. If, if, there comes such a time then who is going to moan and wail about using drones? You of course, and others, who won't mind their own business.
Finally, in case this sped by you, that paragraph is full of a ''mind your own business'' explanation.
And you swear that you could not possibly have loose screws, to see why a killer/strike drone is being used rather than a "surveillance drone"? LOL
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
The Explorer:
''The question is, why are they going public now about using killer drones, that you keep confusing with just "surveillance" tasks.''
You can't even get that straight. Do you understand that the two are one and the same with the exception that surveillance comes first then the killing. And what does it matter that they are going public. You reckon someone got the goods on them?
''Furthermore, the aforementioned allegations don't pertain to disclosure of the *specifics* of usage of these killer drones, but rather, merely that their usage had been ongoing for some time. Think, Grums.''
Here you go again. 'Allegations don't pertain to specifics.'' By your own admission Drones kill people (after surveillance I might add). Now you seem to be pleading for someone to tell me what a Drone will do because the specifics haven't been released.
Okay then let's see what we have here now. Drones, killer or otherwise to you, have been used for some time now. I haven't questioned that, as noted earlier, presumably on the southern U.S. border. But what remains a mystery thus far, from you, is your extrapolation, without a solid foundational basis, to say, because specifics haven't been released, that somehow this means someone, or group, is being bombed into non existence because you say so. You will recall, and you highlighted, killer Drones, not surveillance. Can I conclude you actually believe or know anyone, civilians or thugs or otherwise, are being targetted, for killing? I'm not saying they aren't, as a ''notion.'' I'm telling you I don't know it and neither do you.
If so, then how would this tie in with the thousands of reporters, both left and right leaning, who haven't made any noise about this; obviously this doesn't mean that many reporters are on the scene. But reporters do talk. Does this mean they're on the take in not releasing specifics.
Now you will be aware the U.S., like other governments, is quite capable of some lowdown tactics. I know this, you know, everyone knows this. Yet your position says nothing for how you came to know ''killer'' Drones are being used and by extension the killer aspect actually means killing right now.
The Explorer:
''Interesting, when your tactics are turned on you, you begin to see how others view your posts. I understood that your "question" of a post was sarcastic in tone, but so was my response to it.''
Of course my comment was sarcastic but accurate at the same time.
The Explorer:
''Anybody who thinks that killer drones are not going to be used for well, killing, has got to have some loose screws in the head.''
Me:
First off you just committed a logical fallcy. You are saying I disagree with that statement in terms of what Drones are capable of? Is this your intent?
The Explorer:
''Before you say something is a logical fallacy, make sure your follow up reflects why so. But no; you were apparently expressing your disagreement with any notion that local police would use these drones to kill citizens.''
I brought up that comment to you earlier. My reaction was based on what you said directly. Read your stuff again. You post is telling me I don't know what killer Drones are used for.
And disagreeing with the ''notion'' that local enforcement won't see fit to use this weapon? Without anything substantive to go on from you then yes your notion is what it says. I can come up with a few notions myself. Will it stand up under scrutiny given what's been discussed thus far?
Further,you should make a note to yourself to define what 'citizens' means. A classical definition can be anyone participating in an organized society. When you use ''kill citizens'' as you have you automatically eliminate a specific intent as to why, in this case, the U.S., would want to kill its citizens for no apparent reason. I can't divest you of this thought but it is something you should work on so as to not get yourself in deeper where wiggle room will be non existent.
''Well, if the intention isn't to kill someone in the foreseeable future, then why are they using killer/strike drones that are part of the military inventory, rather than simply civil air-certified drones equipped with nothing else but surveillance cameras?''
I do recall telling you earlier that if the situation was deemed necessary by those in the business that at some point in the near future they may use them--for *targeted* individuals. This is not to be construed to say civilians who mind their own business will have cause for alarm. You honestly can't grasp this concept can you.
''No more routine than police carrying tasers, rubber bullets, pepper spray or guns for that matter. You know, those "non-lethal" weapons that they reassure the public about.''
Questions for you. Why do you think the police are armed with those items? You don't think it has anything to do with their own protection? And yes you are definitely allowed to take that and run with it to your hearts desire in maybe saying the cops get out of control once in awhile. Well yes they do. I'm hoping you won't however because if you do then you'll have to explain why those cops who are not out of control will get murdered in the line of duty without even using those devices, for *being* a cop.
The explorer:
''And you swear that you could not possibly have loose screws, to see why a killer/strike drone is being used rather than a "surveillance drone"? LOL''
So here we see your notion morphing into fact. I duly note your use of the word ''is'' to convey your authoritative present tense position.
Okay then. How many citizens have been killed because of this action? Don't forget to remind yourself you set this Drone up to be killing people. You highlighted it for all to see.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: [QB] The Explorer:
''The question is, why are they going public now about using killer drones, that you keep confusing with just "surveillance" tasks.''
You can't even get that straight. Do you understand that the two are one and the same with the exception that surveillance comes first then the killing.
If anyone here is not getting anything straight, it's you; you cannot tell the difference between an unarmed surveillance drone and a strike drone.
It's not that hard. Look it up: there is such a thing as unarmed surveillance drones.
quote:And what does it matter that they are going public. You reckon someone got the goods on them?
If it didn't matter, they wouldn't have gone public NOW. This should be a nobrainer, Grums. I can't guide you to think every single little detail that you ought to arrive at yourself.
quote:''Furthermore, the aforementioned allegations don't pertain to disclosure of the *specifics* of usage of these killer drones, but rather, merely that their usage had been ongoing for some time. Think, Grums.''
Here you go again. 'Allegations don't pertain to specifics.'' By your own admission Drones kill people (after surveillance I might add). Now you seem to be pleading for someone to tell me what a Drone will do because the specifics haven't been released.
Are you speaking Aramaic? 'cause this does not make sense. You cried about the government having to spill the beans on some supposed "sensitive" material. Well, they didn't. What about that stumps you?
quote:But what remains a mystery thus far, from you, is your extrapolation, without a solid foundational basis, to say, because specifics haven't been released, that somehow this means someone, or group, is being bombed into non existence because you say so.
This "extrapolation" is a figment of your own imagination.
quote: You will recall, and you highlighted, killer Drones, not surveillance. Can I conclude you actually believe or know anyone, civilians or thugs or otherwise, are being targetted, for killing? I'm not saying they aren't, as a ''notion.'' I'm telling you I don't know it and neither do you.
It comes out of common sense intuition, something you need to think about getting yourself: They are not using civil-certified surveillance-only drones; rather, they are using killer strike drones out of the military inventory, which have been *in fact* used for just that--killing targets. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what such an application would mean.
quote:Yet your position says nothing for how you came to know ''killer'' Drones are being used and by extension the killer aspect actually means killing right now.
From listening to the news. You should try it one day.
quote: The Explorer:
''Interesting, when your tactics are turned on you, you begin to see how others view your posts. I understood that your "question" of a post was sarcastic in tone, but so was my response to it.''
Of course my comment was sarcastic but accurate at the same time.
Your "comment" was a stupid question. It therefore cannot be accurate.
quote:Further,you should make a note to yourself to define what 'citizens' means.
Now you want me to school you on what a citizen is. This just gets better and better, doesn't it. LOL
quote:Questions for you.
That's all you've had for me in this entire exchange: thoughtless questions, i.e. when you are not trying to openly put words into my mouth. Why stop now?
quote:So here we see your notion morphing into fact. I duly note your use of the word ''is'' to convey your authoritative present tense position.
No, just your Alzheimer's kicking in. I told you that the drones had been in use, but not publicly made known. Now, its going public--to make their use "officially" sanctioned. Jeez.
quote:Okay then. How many citizens have been killed because of this action? Don't forget to remind yourself you set this Drone up to be killing people. You highlighted it for all to see.
Man, why do even bother replying if you are just too lazy to read what's already posted. I did say that nothing specific is provided on past usage, just that they were in use, did I not?
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
The Explorer:
''The question is, why are they going public now about using killer drones, that you keep confusing with just "surveillance" tasks.''
Me: You can't even get that straight. Do you understand that the two are one and the same with the exception that surveillance comes first then the killing.
Explorer, mysteriously says:
''If anyone here is not getting anything straight, it's you; you cannot tell the difference between an unarmed surveillance drone and a strike drone.
''It's not that hard. Look it up: there is such a thing as unarmed surveillance drones.''
Initially you started using 'killer Drones' thereby distinguishing it from simple surveillance. Now you amend your story to fit your goofup--then telling me I don't know the difference between unarmed and surveillance. When I posted this: ''Do you understand that the two are one and the same with the exception that surveillance comes first then the killing.''---this is in line with your use of killer Drones Explorer. That's why I said surveillance first, killing second. It's hard for to me see why you didn't understand what that means. Again, your phrase of killer Drones came from you, not me. You specifically highlighted killer Drones on at least two ocassions and it sure seems you were distancing surveillance from the actual strike.
Be aware I've followed along with you far enough and still managed to entertain your reckless display of intelligence. This however is it from me.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman:
Initially you started using 'killer Drones' thereby distinguishing it from simple surveillance.
I still do. There is no "initially" about it.
quote: Now you amend your story to fit your goofup--then telling me I don't know the difference between unarmed and surveillance.
Where is this "goofup" in terminology that you see? I have consistently made a distinction between "killer drones" and mere "surveillance drones". You just haven't been paying attention.
quote:Again, your phrase of killer Drones came from you, not me.
I know; I never said that you said it. Ditch the red herring.
quote: You specifically highlighted killer Drones on at least two ocassions
Yes, to make you understand what I'm talking about, but apparently even that would not work. Of course strike drones would have to have surveillance capacity; that's how they achieve their striking capabilities. Who does not know that?
What you don't seem to be grasping, is that I'm telling that, if the police were only concerned with using the drones for *just* surveillance, then they can get "surveillance-intended-only" drones right off the shelf. They do exist, and manufactured just for that--surveillance, no killing. They don't have to use military strike/combat drones for the same task. Now of course, even this explanation will fly over your head.
quote:Be aware I've followed along with you far enough and still managed to entertain your reckless display of intelligence. This however is it from me.
So, you've decided that its now time to throw in the towel? Good for you. Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
The Explorer's
Topic:
U.S. Unmanned Attack Drones...
quote:...infamously used extensively to assassinate and kill people overseas, will in the very near future be used by local law enforcement on U.S. citizens as the primary targets.
So stay tuned, and watch out for a drone over your very own backyard soon.
Posted by tomgat (Member # 20153) on :
if this family gathering has caused some in power to see a need for surveillance then isn't it likely there are some in that gathering who haven't been ''minding their own business? Thus they have attracted attention from those who *do* want them to mind their own business. Does this mean that drones will be used, in this country, to kill U.S citizens in the future. I don't think so. On the other hand this may mean things have gotten out of control for this to happen. -------------------- background checks
![[Wink]](wink.gif)