Google Earth and "Collateral Damage"

netbuzz writes "British news reports say insurgents are using Google Earth to pinpoint vulnerable targets within bases in Iraq. Could Google be doing more to prevent this? Should they be doing more? They certainly could explain more."

Comments

Re:*Insurgents*

[Overly Critical Guy]

Because it's not "the people" fighting. It's armed militia groups fighting each other, aided with resources from Iran who is trying to destabilize the country for political reasons. These groups are killing more Iraqis than they are American troops. Freedom fighters fight against the forced control of another country, but here, Iraqis already have their own elected government. That is why the media keeps referring to a civil war in Iraq, because there are armed groups battling it out amongst themselves.

That's also why it's silly when people compare Iraq to Vietnam. First, there's no draft. Second, we actually haven't lost any engagement since the war started, and we've lost the least amount of troops in recorded history. There was actually an article recently discussing how the American people, for some reason, are much less tolerant of the Iraq War than previous wars that were much bloodier, be it a negative American media or simple weariness. And third, the fighting has more to do with armed groups killing each other than any organized resistance against the U.S. military, who are only there now because Iraqi security hasn't stepped up to police its own country.

I'm one of these guys who wishes we'd pull out already, but acknowledges that a lot of people have a much more negative image of Iraq than what is reality over there due to, among other things, hostile elements in the media who just don't like Bush. Most people don't even know the major news orgs no longer have embedded reporters over there and are relying on hired Iraqi stringers for eyewitness accounts, which leads to underreported controversies like the AP's shaky claims of burned Sunnis.

It probably sounds like I'm a hawk or something, so I expect some critical replies. I just happen to be aware enough to realize news organizations aren't about informing the public as some sort of civil duty but are businesses that rely on ratings and sales like every other company, and they are more interested in "storylines" that grab attention rather than painting an objective picture. I'm pretty much calling them drama queens, which is what they typically are. The fact is that we rely on the media for our image of what's happening over there, and little has been reported on this process of information dissemination originating from anonymous stringers. It's amazing how inaccurate the news is--and I'm not just talking about Iraq coverage--when you do some research behind the story and find out how the situation really is.

I subscribe to a "one-thirds mantra"--I take everything I hear and assume a third of it is probably true while the rest requires my own verification. I strip out the hype and melodrama and sprinkle on some common sense.

If I hear the iPhone is going to be a groundbreaking revolution, I just assume it's probably going to be a cool, cutting-edge phone but I have to see for myself. If I hear Iraq is a "quagmire" and that troop deaths have reached a "grim milestone" (did you notice all the media outlets use the same phrases?), I just assume there is some resistance delaying our inevitable pullout and that casualties are more than the military would like, but probably not as big a deal as is reported (and research shows that to be true--again, an extremely small casualty rate compared to past wars). If I hear Barak Obama is a "rising superstar" or a "rock star" of the Democratic Party (again, notice how they all use the same phrases?), I assume he's probably just some charismatic guy the left-leaning elements of the media are fawning over but not that big a deal.

Same goes for this story. I strip out two-thirds of the hype and melodrama and assume there has been use of Google Earth by terrorists, but that such a thing is braindead obvious because terrorists have been using the Internet to get as much information as they can for years, and that the military already knew this. I also assume this satellite imagery is available outside of Google Earth and would have been in their possession even if Google wasn't around.

Re:Well stated.

[Technician]

Those who don't learn from history are condemmed to repeat it. We didn't declare war, they did. We decided to fight it over there instead of over here. Thanks for noticing.

Re:Yes Let's shut down the internet

[hjf]

You're right. We could also make GPS a subscription-based service, so you have to identify and pay for it, or at least get an idea of who used it. We could also make the GPS "blackhole" some 6 sq miles around potential targets. That would make GPS unuseful in cities, but hey, who cares? Anything to stop the terrorists. Yeah well, the systems has its flaws. If you're walking around the woods and suddenly you lose signal, you will know that there is a potential target within 6 miles, but that's easily solved. Just put a few guards around the perimeter. If they see you walking around with a GPS unit, they are authorized to use deadly force (Some innocent lives will be lost, but they will sure catch a few terrorists in the process).

OK now seriously. Are you a government employee? Or are you a stupid US soldier? I know you voted for Bush (and I know you're in for registered voting. That is, you sign your name and candidate, so there is a record for whom you voted). Dude, you can't really be serious, either you are really, really stupid, or your sarcasm tags don't render well in my old SeaMonkey build.

Let me put it this way: THERE ARE CONTROLS IN THE BORDERS, FAR MORE RIGUROUS THAN WHAT YOU NEED TO GET A STUPID MAP, AND TERRORISTS FIND THEIR WAY IN. DO YOU THINK THAT RECORDING WHO VIEWED WHAT ON GOOGLE MAPS YOU WILL SOLVE ANYTHING? EVEN IF YOU'RE REQUIRED TO SHOW UP IN PERSON WITH YOUR ID, YOU CAN VERY EASILY GET A FAKE ID AND GET THE DATA ANYWAY.

How can you be so stupid, man?

That is because you werent' in vietnam

[DaedalusHKX]

On either side. I know plenty of old vets who thouht it was bullshit that most of their buddies are screwed from that war, but that they had to call in every shot they took. snipers, grunts, etc. Then they get called home after "wiping out the majority of the bastards" during the mighty "Tet Offensive" (which, by the way, WE, the USA won.) That, as any grunt except John Kerry can tell you, was a won war, and then abanoned. Iraq isn't the same deal. In Vietnam we had a defined goal, in Iraq we don't. Back then we were fighting the Commies, and we KNEW who they were (China, Russia, Eastern Europe, Franklin Roosevelt, etc)... today we're fighting "terrorism" and we DONT know who they are.

Since WW2 we have not really had a WAR.. we've had "police action" undeclared wars of aggression with no real point, except to expend resoures and man power.

And for your remark, I had no issue with attacking if someone lobs a nuke, but HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY WILL LOB IT? I hang out with armed people, some cops, some not, some soldiers, some vets, some not. Not a ONE has ever shot me, despite the fact that the potential is there. I presume the same holds for wars of aggression.

The old adage holds true:

An armed society is a polite society. (I can assure you from experience that this holds true among those whom I consider my peers. Socialists do not count, since you folks keep saying "you don't trust yourselves with guns". Guess what? I don't trust you with guns either.)