Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
OverSword

Military Observing US cities with drones

146 posts in this topic

Yes, like all the thousands of commuter and privately owned small airplanes that are constantly falling onto cities everywhere. (Sarcasm... again)

Obviously it isn't something that would be common. But people already hate the idea of these things snooping so they'd jump all over any incident. And as to your prior point about the occasional drone vs a terror attack I would take the terror attack and I'll tell you why. The FBI would uncover who did it in very short order and then the military could deal with them. Eventually, when the terror masters decide to go all in, they will strike here much more often no matter what we do or how many freedoms we surrender. The only reason air travel hasn't been crippled already is primarily because they haven't yet chosen to attack that infrastructure. It's impossible to screen, check or otherwise "sniff" every bag that goes in the hold of an aircraft. The only real safety measure is that every bag has to have a traveler associated with it on board the aircraft. All I'm saying is that governments by their nature tend toward abuse of power and our's already has way too much.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how would you propose watch only the actual "suspected terrorists" and not the averge public? By what method can we keep track of only those who are criminal or dangerous, and leave the privacy of everyone else alone. That technology simply does not exist. To find the terrorists, we have to violate some of the publics privacy. Myself, I would rather a drone flys over my house, or all my email goes through a filter somewhere, then face one successfull terrorist attack after another on my homeland. Just last year there was the Christmas Tree Bomber here in Portland who was desprate for some why to blow up hundreds of people. Should we simply wait till these people are successful, then track them down and catch them?

You think more Timothy McVeigh's or Unibombers are better then an occational drone flying overhead??

That whole christmas tree bomber fiasco was the FBI encouraging a nutjob so bad example. My personal feeling is that I'm not afraid of terrorists, I'm more afraid of an overpowerful government grabbing ever more power all in the name of making me safer. You are a victim of control through fear and don't even know it.

edited to add I don't believe terrorism can be effectively fought. Much like the war on drugs, the freedoms surrended outwiegh the terrorists stopped by far. Just how many terror attacks are stopped each year? Do you think they don't report them? They do. None. Except of course the (guffaw) chrstmas tree bomber which they created or the underwear bomber :w00t: which they also, evidence would indicate, were behind.(no pun intended) The NYPD recently confirmed that thier racial profiling and spying on of muslims, at the cost of millions of tax-payer dollars, resulted in not one terrorist attack being foiled.

Wake up people. You're already plenty safe. The biggest threat to you rights is your own government.

Edited by OverSword
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how would you propose watch only the actual "suspected terrorists" and not the averge public? By what method can we keep track of only those who are criminal or dangerous, and leave the privacy of everyone else alone. That technology simply does not exist. To find the terrorists, we have to violate some of the publics privacy. Myself, I would rather a drone flys over my house, or all my email goes through a filter somewhere, then face one successfull terrorist attack after another on my homeland. Just last year there was the Christmas Tree Bomber here in Portland who was desprate for some why to blow up hundreds of people. Should we simply wait till these people are successful, then track them down and catch them?

You think more Timothy McVeigh's or Unibombers are better then an occational drone flying overhead??

The fears you embrace regarding "terrorists" reminds me very much of H.L. Mencken's observations last century: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

You have clearly bought into the fraud that is the Global War On Terror, a hobgoblin in whose cause our rights have been taken by legislation such as the Unpatriot Act and the NDAA. Pity.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as to your prior point about the occasional drone vs a terror attack I would take the terror attack and I'll tell you why. The FBI would uncover who did it in very short order and then the military could deal with them. Eventually, when the terror masters decide to go all in, they will strike here much more often no matter what we do or how many freedoms we surrender.

So you would rather have 3% greater (or whatever percentage), and have the occational couple thousand Americans get snuffed out by terrorist attacks?

All I'm saying is that governments by their nature tend toward abuse of power and our's already has way too much.

While that might be true, such attitudes often run into paranoia, and unsubstatiated claims of government abuse of civilians. Like the whole FEMA camp conspiricy theory. And the claims that George Bush, or Obama, or whoever are going to set themselves up as dictator.

I'd rather catch the terrorists ahead of time then have even one person die from a car bomb, or IED, on American soil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fears you embrace regarding "terrorists" reminds me very much of H.L. Mencken's observations last century: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

You have clearly bought into the fraud that is the Global War On Terror, a hobgoblin in whose cause our rights have been taken by legislation such as the Unpatriot Act and the NDAA. Pity.

Except that the FBI, NSA and CSI, along with Homeland Security (and the TSA) have uncovered and prevented dozens, maybe hundreds of planned terrorist actions. When these things are really happening it is not the promotion of Fear for fear itself, it is actually stopping bad guys.

If your city asks for more police officers are they really just trying to build an army to take over the civlians or are they trying to protect the populace better? Obviously with an army of cops the police would have a better chance of establishing martial law, but what the hell would be the motivation?

The hobgoblin is that civilian (police) operated drones are an actual threat to anyone.

I'm not buying to any conspiricy theory of Fraud or Fear. I'm simply thinking for myself, and using common sense and logic. Which both tell me that the Ultra-Privacy people are trying to say they are protecting something that does not exist. What real privacy do you have??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hobgoblin is that civilian (police) operated drones are an actual threat to anyone.

I'm not buying to any conspiricy theory of Fraud or Fear. I'm simply thinking for myself, and using common sense and logic. Which both tell me that the Ultra-Privacy people are trying to say they are protecting something that does not exist. What real privacy do you have??

This isn't about police drones.

And as to what real privacy do you have? Less and less and with your attitude even less yet to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't about police drones.

And as to what real privacy do you have? Less and less and with your attitude even less yet to come.

What exactly do you need privacy For? What does it Add to your life? Why are you greedy for it?

I thought the thread was about loss of privacy due to drones flying over US cities. Is that not what it is about?

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm not going to take sites with clearly biased names such as "prison planet" seriously. The OP has proven in the past that they don't know what they are talking about so I'll leave the rest of UM to stand behind and point and laugh.

And besides, drones have commercial as well as military uses. Hell, they were using them in Christchurch to look inside buildings that were considered too dangerous for humans to enter.

Drone use doesn't automatically mean surveillance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are catching mixer suspects etc,within hours now. Between surveillance cameras,and facial recognition ,with the drones ,they're caught within 24 hours of it being on the news.

I was against the drones initially,but if it catches bad guys faster ,I'm all for it .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm not going to take sites with clearly biased names such as "prison planet" seriously. The OP has proven in the past that they don't know what they are talking about so I'll leave the rest of UM to stand behind and point and laugh.

Prison Planet = Alex Jones

Alex Jones frequently talks about FEMA Death Camps and fear mongering.

Anything that Alex Jones supports is pure hogwash. So yes, I will sit back, point and laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you need privacy outside of your home? As long as I am free to do as I please I could careless about how many camera's are around the city as long as it's not in my home. The difference between a drone and helicopter is nil. Personally if one was to crash in my yard I'd pick the drone because it would be easier to clean-up and the pilot wouldn't die. Not to mention the other uses. People should be more worried about changing our laws to allow us more freedom then worrying about what they do is on camera.

Not once has the police successfully entered my house without just cause.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is why do you need privacy outside your home? work for a gang? smuggling? that would be more suspicious than a drone flying around

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that the FBI, NSA and CSI, along with Homeland Security (and the TSA) have uncovered and prevented dozens, maybe hundreds of planned terrorist actions. When these things are really happening it is not the promotion of Fear for fear itself, it is actually stopping bad guys.

If your city asks for more police officers are they really just trying to build an army to take over the civlians or are they trying to protect the populace better? Obviously with an army of cops the police would have a better chance of establishing martial law, but what the hell would be the motivation?

The hobgoblin is that civilian (police) operated drones are an actual threat to anyone.

I'm not buying to any conspiricy theory of Fraud or Fear. I'm simply thinking for myself, and using common sense and logic. Which both tell me that the Ultra-Privacy people are trying to say they are protecting something that does not exist. What real privacy do you have??

They have prevented hundreds of planned terrorist actions? Well, I suppose if you believe every story they tell that would be true.

But for me, using only 2 examples, it is ludicrous to suggest that pizza deliverymen could really successfully attack Fort Dix, or that 7 homeless losers in Miami could have pulled off whatever great crime their addled minds might have been led to by their FBI handlers.

It is shades of DeLorean, all over again. The vast majority of the domestic cases generated by the Global War On Terror were government entrapment, pure and simple. You might believe that nonsense, but I do not. It is the classic case of the federal agencies justifying their existence by concocting half-truths and selling them to the media and a gullible public.

You are certainly free to believe whatever you want to, whether it be Santa Claus or the tenets of the GWOT, but I will pass, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly do you need privacy For? What does it Add to your life? Why are you greedy for it?

I thought the thread was about loss of privacy due to drones flying over US cities. Is that not what it is about?

What exactly do I need privacy for????? Go back to East Germany franz.

Yeah, I'm not going to take sites with clearly biased names such as "prison planet" seriously. The OP has proven in the past that they don't know what they are talking about so I'll leave the rest of UM to stand behind and point and laugh.

And besides, drones have commercial as well as military uses. Hell, they were using them in Christchurch to look inside buildings that were considered too dangerous for humans to enter.

Drone use doesn't automatically mean surveillance.

The drones you're reffering to are a far cry from the military drones (which in the USA it was ilegal for them to use against civilians until recently) The drones your referring to are useful life saving tools that more resemble a model plane than a military class radio controled dealer of death.

We are catching mixer suspects etc,within hours now. Between surveillance cameras,and facial recognition ,with the drones ,they're caught within 24 hours of it being on the news.

I was against the drones initially,but if it catches bad guys faster ,I'm all for it .

Mixer suspects? Could you be more specific? And as far as facial recognition goes, have you seen minority report? Is that realy the world you want to live in? Not me.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*cries laughing*

Oh,the mixer suspects ,you know,the ones at the party with the dry martini in their hand,all trying to meet the debutantes .

*rolling*

Autospell faux pas extraordinaire !

MURDER SUSPECTS.

nyc has so many security cameras now,I they intended to buy 30,000 drones so.....

I'm sure we now have state of the art facial recognition stuffs too .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have prevented hundreds of planned terrorist actions? Well, I suppose if you believe every story they tell that would be true.

Even if only 10% are real... you would rather have your little bit more of privacy and have another 9-11 attack every two years?

But for me, using only 2 examples, it is ludicrous to suggest that pizza deliverymen could really successfully attack Fort Dix, or that 7 homeless losers in Miami could have pulled off whatever great crime their addled minds might have been led to by their FBI handlers.

Timothy McVeigh... Homeless military vet. Blew up an Oklahoma Federal Building

Ted Kaczynski.... The Unibomber... Homeless college professor. Deployed 14 bombs and killed 3 people.

Even the homeless can be successful terrorists.

it is shades of DeLorean, all over again. The vast majority of the domestic cases generated by the Global War On Terror were government entrapment, pure and simple. You might believe that nonsense, but I do not. It is the classic case of the federal agencies justifying their existence by concocting half-truths and selling them to the media and a gullible public.

I beleive the greater majority of those who actually know about these things would disagree with you. All these terrorists get a trial, and any entrapment would ruin the government's case. If there is any entrapment, I think it would be minimal.

The Chrismas Tree Bomber here in Portland claimed entrapment because the FBI supplied him with the materials he wanted to commit his terrorist attacks. That is not entrapment. Entrapment is not providing the means, it is providing the motive. Few if any of the terrorists that are captured this way are recruited to do so by the FBI/Homeland Security. They already existed and the FBI found them and stopped them before the prospective terrorist had the opportunity to get REAL materials to accomplish their mission. Look at Timothy McVeigh, it took him a long time of Hate, but eventually he found those bomb materials.

You are certainly free to believe whatever you want to, whether it be Santa Claus or the tenets of the GWOT, but I will pass, thanks.

Good luck to you also. :st

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly do I need privacy for????? Go back to East Germany franz.

That is not an answer.

The drones you're reffering to are a far cry from the military drones (which in the USA it was ilegal for them to use against civilians until recently) The drones your referring to are useful life saving tools that more resemble a model plane than a military class radio controled dealer of death.

They are the same drones. Just some are armed with weapons and some are not.

So are you only against Military intrusion into privacy, because I thought you were simply anti-drone altogether?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not an answer.

They are the same drones. Just some are armed with weapons and some are not.

So are you only against Military intrusion into privacy, because I thought you were simply anti-drone altogether?

I think I've figured you out as far as privacy issues go:

You wife won't listen to you. Your kids won't listen to you. You are all thrilled that at last someone is listening to you!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if only 10% are real... you would rather have your little bit more of privacy and have another 9-11 attack every two years?

Timothy McVeigh... Homeless military vet. Blew up an Oklahoma Federal Building

Ted Kaczynski.... The Unibomber... Homeless college professor. Deployed 14 bombs and killed 3 people.

Even the homeless can be successful terrorists.

I beleive the greater majority of those who actually know about these things would disagree with you. All these terrorists get a trial, and any entrapment would ruin the government's case. If there is any entrapment, I think it would be minimal.

The Chrismas Tree Bomber here in Portland claimed entrapment because the FBI supplied him with the materials he wanted to commit his terrorist attacks. That is not entrapment. Entrapment is not providing the means, it is providing the motive. Few if any of the terrorists that are captured this way are recruited to do so by the FBI/Homeland Security. They already existed and the FBI found them and stopped them before the prospective terrorist had the opportunity to get REAL materials to accomplish their mission. Look at Timothy McVeigh, it took him a long time of Hate, but eventually he found those bomb materials.

Good luck to you also. :st

McVeigh had handlers.

Yes, Kaczynski was the real thing.

Yes, there are predators out and about, and fraudsters, and all manner of criminal, but that has been true since humans populated the planet. Society has dealt with those people, rather well, all things considered.

To suggest that the government can completely rid the species of such miscreants is sophistry, yet that is what our government tells us.

Should we simply nullify the Bill Of Rights to comply with such sophistry? Not in my book, no.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

It is safe to say that the GWOT is one of those contemporary hobgoblins. The older hobgoblin is the War On Drugs. I refuse to buy into that sophistry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have prevented hundreds of planned terrorist actions? Well, I suppose if you believe every story they tell that would be true.

Isnt that a kind if catch 22 argument? You claim the security is useless because they havent stopped any terrorist attacks... when you're shown terrorist attacks that they've stopped, you claim that its all lies perpetrated by the media in order to scare you into believing that the security is necessary, and its necessary to scare you into believing that the security is necessary because the security hasnt stopped any terrorist attacks... How is anyone supposed to argue with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The drones you're reffering to are a far cry from the military drones (which in the USA it was ilegal for them to use against civilians until recently) The drones your referring to are useful life saving tools that more resemble a model plane than a military class radio controled dealer of death.

And yet many militaries around the world use small drones for immediate battlefield reconnaissance and such. And I meant that you could use those larger ones for such purposes, such as S&R, maritime surveillance or even geographical surveying (because satellites can only give so much of a picture).

Fact is, those drones that the military are being accused of using are harmless anyway. They're unarmed. Most drones in service are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I've figured you out as far as privacy issues go:

You wife won't listen to you. Your kids won't listen to you. You are all thrilled that at last someone is listening to you!!

That is not an answer either... ???

I asked an honest question and you are giving me bullsh*t answers.

What exactly do you need privacy For? What does it Add to your life? Why are you greedy for it?

If you don't know, or can't articulate it, just say so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[/background][/size][/font][/color]

Isnt that a kind if catch 22 argument? You claim the security is useless because they havent stopped any terrorist attacks... when you're shown terrorist attacks that they've stopped, you claim that its all lies perpetrated by the media in order to scare you into believing that the security is necessary, and its necessary to scare you into believing that the security is necessary because the security hasnt stopped any terrorist attacks... How is anyone supposed to argue with that?

I did not say security is useless, I said that to a very large extent it is an illusion.

To get into more detail would be going off topic, but in short, our security apparatus TODAY is based entirely upon the events of 11 September, which many understand to have been a false flag event. Staged events.

So if we have a security system based upon deception and fraud, what does that say about our rational processes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would highly recommend that anyone who is bothered by the concept of drones flying over your home spying on you go to the FAA website and do some research.

The ONLY drones being flown in or around cities are the little ones that your kids could get at a hobby store.

The FAA has restricted Global Hawk and Predator flights to restricted Airspace only, they will not allow them in the airspace with other aircraft until they are deemed safe enough and they are no where near that.

No drones flying over the US are Armed with weapons.

The ONLY large drones being flown in the US are the ones DHS uses on the borders and the ones flown by the military for training and they are flown in restricted airspace and have no weapon capability.

Its all right there on their website.

The only place you will find these things being mentioned as weaponized freedom stealing metal beasts are on the conspiracy sites where tin foil hat folks like Alex Jones like to take one thing and twist it into something demonic for his own benefit.

I'll take the local police using a RC helicopter to take pictures and survey a crime in progress at the cost to me of $100 a day as compared to a manned helicopter with a usage cost of $10,000 a day.

Same results just cheaper.

and if someone were to ever get lost in the woods while hiking etc, i would love to have two or three of these up looking for them all while keeping the first responders safe from harmful environments until they were found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you need privacy outside of your home? As long as I am free to do as I please I could careless about how many camera's are around the city as long as it's not in my home. The difference between a drone and helicopter is nil. Personally if one was to crash in my yard I'd pick the drone because it would be easier to clean-up and the pilot wouldn't die. Not to mention the other uses. People should be more worried about changing our laws to allow us more freedom then worrying about what they do is on camera.

Not once has the police successfully entered my house without just cause.

I agree with most of your post.

I just would like to know that without probable cause or suspicion of a crime that they are not following me around.

Something very Orwellian about having the Government spy on its citizens with no cause.

As long as the drone remains parked until a warrant is being served, or a raid is being conducted i am fine with them.

I do not however believe a free nation should be subject ot cameras monitoring your every move.

Freedom doesnt end at my front door, Freedom is our way of life as a whole.

I am not willing to sacrifice my freedom to the government just to have them ensure my security.

BL: Pro Drones as long as they are used responsibly and in a manner that protects the freedoms of the citizens and protects the people who otherwise would have been in harms way.

Against Cameras and unprovoked monitoring just because they have the means.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.