al-Qaeda's 22 Tips and Tricks To Dodge Drones

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

al-Qaeda's 22 Tips and Tricks To Dodge Drones

Posted by Soulskill on Friday February 22, 2013 @02:33AM from the john-connor-consulting dept.

Dr Max writes "Ever wonder how al-Qaeda operates under the watchful eye of the U.S. Army? Well, the Associated Press found a list of 22 of their tips and tricks on avoiding drone strikes. Most of it consists of the obvious: stay in the shadows or under thick trees, don't use wireless communications. However, there are also some less obvious solutions, like the $2,595 Russian 'sky grabber, which can track the drones. Their document (PDF) also suggests covering your roof and car with broken glass. They also claim good snipers can take out the reconnaissance drones, which fly at a lower level. Now the question is: will all of this still be relevant during the robo-apocalypse?"

11 of 303 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Of course it will be relevant by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-22 02:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

After all, terrorist are merely the first type of target of these methods of enforcement.
Re:SlashDot.org, a day old copy of DrudgeReport??? by SJHillman · 2013-02-22 02:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

Because you enjoy complaining? Anyone else would just quietly take Slashdot off their Favorites, Bookmarks or wherever you keep the link.
Second type of target... by FriendlyLurker · 2013-02-22 02:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

Children, and according to standford/NYU study:

Following nine months of intensive research—including two investigations in Pakistan, more than 130 interviews with victims, witnesses, and experts, and review of thousands of pages of documentation and media reporting—this report presents evidence of the damaging and counterproductive effects of current US drone strike policies. Based on extensive interviews with Pakistanis living in the regions directly affected, as well as humanitarian and medical workers, this report provides new and firsthand testimony about the negative impacts US policies are having on the civilians living under drones.
It is like those holding the reins want to create terrorists, must not be enough already to justify the defence spending we already have - good for MIC business.
1. Re:Second type of target... by smooth+wombat · 2013-02-22 02:58 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Then maybe the people shouldn't shelter, assist or allow these people to be in their villages which would obviate the need for drones to be overhead.
  Besides, if we're not going to get on Israel's case for their collective punishment of Palestinians, what makes you think we care about collective punishment for those who harbor people who are trying to attack us?
  
  --
  We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
2. Re:Second type of target... by medcalf · 2013-02-22 03:21 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The perfidy is on the part of the enemy. When the jihadis violate the laws of war by hiding among civilians, not wearing distinctive markings and the like, it is the jihadis who caused the death of the presumably innocent, or at least non-combatant, civilians around them. It is not the drone operators who are responsible for those deaths. Why is it, by the way, that people always seem to ignore that the Geneva Conventions and other laws of warfare actually take into account the fact that the other side might not fight by those rules, and in that case effectively absolves the side that does?
  
  --
  -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
3. Re:Second type of target... by Microlith · 2013-02-22 03:47 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  no drone action should be taken against terrorists who do not hesitate to kill our children
  Pray tell, what terrorist has done this? Seriously? When in the last 10 years has a domestic terrorist actually killed children in the US?
  Where are all these lurking Arab terrorists that we're told we should constantly live in fear of, thus we should give up our rights?
4. Re:Second type of target... by CanHasDIY · 2013-02-22 05:22 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  9/11 says otherwise.
  Oh, come now - even the government has stopped trotting that tired old meme out. The guys who did / planned that now 11 year old event are all dead, and as I highly doubt you worked in the WTC, I'm hard pressed to believe that you, personally, were a target of that particular attack. Get over yourself.
  
  So do the hordes of documents recovered at Bin Laden's compound.
  Really? Those documents name you, specifically, as a target? Or is this just another example of the paranoid bloviating that I called you out on originally?
  
  So do the daily speeches from various Imams, religious leaders, political leaders and sundry others throughout the world. So do postings from numerous organizations.
  If you think third-world despots talking shit and making vague, random threats regarding the US is some new phenomenon, I'd have to ask what rock you've been living under since... well, since the US started playing Team America: World Police.
  Not to mention, our government does it's own fair share of saber rattling and beligerant assault, so it's not like we're completely innocent in all this, contrary to what American Exceptionalism has brainwashed you to believe.
  
  So do the thwarted attempts at car and suicide bombings.
  What, you mean those fake terrorist plants created by the FBI?
  You don't find it odd that the only domestic 'terrorists' the government could find in the past decade were ones they created themselves?
  Wanna buy a bridge in Brooklyn? I'll give you a great deal.
  
  Most importantly, so do the words from the people we have killed wherein they have stated their goal is to attack the U.S.
  See above response regarding saber-rattling. Also, are you really afraid of what dead men said they would do, presuming they were still alive?
  
  Or are you saying all those people are merely plants by the CIA?
  FBI, but yea, quite a few. Of course, it's a well known fact (among those of us who can stomach facts) that Osama Bin Laden was originally funded and trained by the CIA; so was the Taliban. Considering our government's track record on training attack dogs that end up turning on us... can you prove any of them aren't government plants?
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:SlashDot.org, a day old copy of DrudgeReport??? by ak3ldama · 2013-02-22 02:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

I have seen this occur with NPR stories too. Slashdot has become a slowly metered feed of old news. Every 40 or so minutes, bam, next story. It is ok to come here for the discussion, and to review some of what has happened if you haven't seen or heard the news lately. You just need to change your expectations since obviously complaining doesn't change things around here.

--
"but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
Re:sounds like a great mythbusters episode... by MartinSchou · 2013-02-22 03:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

1a) Don't look like you might be a terrorist
1b) Don't look like the stereotypical terrorist
1c) Don't look like 1a or 1b in blurry pictures
1d) Don't look like you might be a Muslim
1e) Don't live in countries that contain people who fit 1, 1a or 1b
Re:SlashDot.org, a day old copy of DrudgeReport??? by arielCo · 2013-02-22 03:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

Slashdot has never been a place to get fresh hot scoops, but rather for (reasoned?) discussion and additional information. For the former purpose, there are dozens other sites like CNN.com. Enjoy the trolling and deaf arguments there.

--
This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
Easy solution by Sparticus789 · 2013-02-22 03:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

The best way to not be killed by a drone strike when you are a member of al-Qaeda is to NOT be a member of al-Qaeda.

--
sudo make me a sandwich