UN Debates Rules Surrounding Killer Robots

First time accepted submitter khb writes "It seems that the UN has started a debate on whether to place limits or bans on robots that can kill without manual supervision. It seems that bombs are viewed as 'kinder' than robots which might be programmed to achieve specific ends (e.g. destroy that bridge, kill anyone carrying a gun, etc.)."

Comments

Re:robots can't kill people

[SplashMyBandit]

It's also "against the rules" to deliberately target civilians - yet who takes notice?

Whenever I hear "United Nations" these days I pretty much assume it is the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) that are driving the agenda. They have the largest (57-country) voting bloc, you see, so they can do things like:

• Take control of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC): this means barbaric Sharia can kill thousands each year and degrade women and homosexuals in ways against the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (refer to: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks). Slavery is going on *today* in Sudan. Not a peep is said. Yet, a member state is condemned by HRC Resolutions dozens of times for defending its own citizens against terror attacks involving rockets and suicide attacks.
• Take control of the UN Refugee Agency: this means that countries are forced to accept waves of Muslims that do not assimilate (this has happened in my country), yet Copts and Assyrians who are under daily attack rarely if ever get refugee status these days
• The HRC was able to pass a non-binding resolution (HRC 16/18) that wanted member states to make statements "offensive" to religions (where the religion decides what is "offensive" or not - truth is not protected and may be considered offensive too). This is a fundamental attack against Free Speech (which was why it was amazing that even the thoroughly incompetent Hilliary Clinton co-sponsored it, and as Secretary of State promised to prosecute/"name-and-shame" Americans practicing their First Amendment Free Speech Rights on US soil). Even worse, the HRC 16/18 was just the "thin end of the wedge" and not it has passed an even worse successor is planned.

The OIC realised it can't get its agenda through sovereign national parliaments - so what it is doing is manipulating the UN and then the resulting treaties will then be applied. Don't think it can happen? it already has. The Free World must dismantle supranational law-making bodies like the UN (and the EU - go UKIP!).

This move is clearly a move by the OIC to prevent Free People from defending themselves with drones against jihadis. The drones have been *very* successful at disrupting the networks so far, which is why the OIC is practicing "lawfare" to get them taken out of the sky. Yes, the drones do occasionally kill the wives and children of jihadis in their compounds. This is bad. However, for those that think the drones should be removed, just what do you propose to replace them with? or are you ok submitting to the Islamic political order under Sharia (which is the stated and published goal of the OIC, if you care to listen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkAZUvQAzkc).

Drones are good for the defense of Free Peoples against jihadis. Just not in my backyard thanks :)

Here's a little video explaining how the OIC came to grab effective control of the UN with the help of the pro-Communist "Non-Aligned Movement", Yes, anti-Semites, it is produced in Jerusalem, - it just so happens that the Israelis are acutely aware of the UN bias against them (thanks to the OIC, which is faithfully following hadith Sahih Muslim 6985). I assure you this is historically factual, so put away your bias for the four minutes it takes to understand the point I'm trying to make about the United Nations. Thank you :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7Mupoo1At8

Dudes, this stuff matters much much more than the Windows vs Linux or Java vs C# or Apple vs Android wars. To quote, "You may not be interested in the war, but the war is interested in you". There is a shadow war for freedom that is going on right now. If you don't stand up and argue for your liberties then the OIC (through the UN) *will* progressively take them away - it may take decades

Re:robots can't kill people

[SplashMyBandit]

Thanks for your analysis. However, the "human rights" that Major Stephen Coughlin (Pentagon analysis whose job was to analyse these for over a decade) is talking about is the (Sharia Compliant) Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, which is at opposition to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I think you missed that distinction - which is why your analysis is all borked. When you think of "human rights" you are thinking of the UN ones, rather than the OIC's Sharia Cairo ones. That's why your analysis is a fail. Perhaps if you had managed to make it to the end of the video you might of learned more - instead of assuming you already had all the answers. Furthermore, Stephen Coughlin's method of operation is *only* to use sources that Muslims write for Muslims - as these are the only true documents. Documents written by Westerners apologising for Islam or documents written by Muslims for Western consumption are not reliable source documents. This is a lesson Coughlin learned when dealing with the Soviet Union - which he talks about in the video series. Too bad you stopped listening when the discussion contradicted your preconceptions. You would never make a good scientist or military intelligence analyst with such a poor methodology. I hope other Slashdotters watch (to the end!) and make up their own mind. But thanks for at least taking a look at the beginning.

that people are genuinely appalled at Israel's mishandling of Palestine.

Yawn. That's right, the fault always lies with Westerners and Israelis. The Palestinians could never, ever be responsible for their own mess in your own eyes. This is "soft bigotry" at its worst - and another analysis failing of yours. Quick question, in 1948 how many Arab armies attacked Israel simultaneously and what was their publicly stated goal (hint: it begins with 'g' and ends with 'enocide' - all in accordance with hadith Sahih Muslim 6985) ? Do you know any of the history at all?

Nice try aiming to distract the conversation about Israel. My claim is that the OIC not only exists but also also forms the largest single voting bloc in the UN. You have not addressed this. Probably because you can't. It is a fact. And because of this fact we have insane resolutions coming from the UN - like the anti-drone stuff being mulled (which is condemned, because it works too well at killing jihadis). Why did you not even address these points? they were the ones I was making.