Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Military United States

al-Qaeda's 22 Tips and Tricks To Dodge Drones 303

Posted by Soulskill
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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

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

Comments Filter:
  • by Angturil (1276488) on Friday February 22, 2013 @10:35AM (#42979143)
    does hiding under a tree really protect your from a predator drone?
    • by Dupple (1016592) on Friday February 22, 2013 @10:55AM (#42979363)

      1. Don’t be a terrorist.
      2. If you are a terrorist, hide behind some civilians.
      3. ????
      4. Prophet!

      • by MartinSchou (1360093) on Friday February 22, 2013 @11:00AM (#42979439)

        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

      • by dtmancom (925636) <gordon2NO@SPAMdtman.com> on Friday February 22, 2013 @11:08AM (#42979527) Homepage
        Last I heard, hiding behind citizens does not stop a predator drone pilot from firing, and he will then be awarded a medal for taking out your sister's wedding party.
        • by Sentrion (964745)

          I thought that would be a two-for-one deal for a terrorist. The main strategy for Al Qaeda in Iraq was to bomb Sunni and Shiite Mosques to drive them into a civil war, or to just set off a car bomb anywhere where people gathered, such as a crowded street market with the goal to kill as many random civilians as possible to show that the US invaders could not build a safe and happy democracy in Iraq.

          Being able to lure drone strikes into the same crowds gives the terrorists the opportunity to kill and maime h

          • by cellocgw (617879)

            Being able to lure drone strikes into the same crowds gives the terrorists the opportunity to kill and maime hundreds while pinning the USA as the direct aggressor, rather than just being powerless to stop it. Of course, the war has dragged on long enough that now nobody cares anymore when a single terrorist is killed and 20 innocent children along with him.

            Those aren't "innocent children," they're "pre-terrorists." (you insensitive clod)

        • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 22, 2013 @12:01PM (#42980239)

          From Drone attacks in Pakistan: Statistics [wikipedia.org]

          As of January 2013, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates the following cumulative statistics about US drone strikes:[2][17]

                  Total strikes: 362
                  Total reported killed: 2,629 – 3,461
                  Civilians reported killed: 475 – 891
                  Children reported killed: 176
                  Total reported injured: 1,267 – 1,431
                  Strikes under the Bush Administration: 52
                  Strikes under the Obama Administration: 310

          [2] Obama 2012 Pakistan Strikes [thebureaui...igates.com] Bureau of Investigative Journalism. Retrieved 29 January 2013.
          [17] Woods, Chris; Lamb, Christina (4 February 2012). "Obama terror drones: CIA tactics in Pakistan include targeting rescuers and funerals" [thebureaui...igates.com]. Bureau of Investigative Journalism. Retrieved 7 February 2012.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by dkleinsc (563838)

            Worth remembering: According to the US government, if you're male, over the age of about 16, and live in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, or Yemen, then you are a "militant" and are not counted among the civilian casualties.

      • by gmuslera (3436)
        The problem with 2 is semantic: who are the ones terrorizing civilians if someone in US (from a general to a field soldier) think that there could be terrorists in that zone, and that zone could be your entire country? So 2 maybe just "be the one that drives the drone".
      • by ZankerH (1401751)
        >3. But make sure the civilians aren't brown/muslim men "of military age", because that means they're eligible for free entry in the US indiscriminate murder program. FTFY
      • by citizenr (871508)

        1. Don’t be a terrorist.
        2. If you are a terrorist, hide behind some civilians.

        So far that hasnt stopped Peace prize winner US sockpuppet. Even US civilians didnt work all that well.

    • by nospam007 (722110) *

      "does hiding under a tree really protect your from a predator drone?"

      OTOH in the areas where those drones attacks are used, such an in incentive for the reforestation movement can be a boon.

    • No it only protects you from lightning.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 22, 2013 @10:37AM (#42979161)

    After all, terrorist are merely the first type of target of these methods of enforcement.

    • by FriendlyLurker (50431) on Friday February 22, 2013 @10:48AM (#42979289)
      Children [huffingtonpost.com], and according to standford/NYU study [guardian.co.uk]:

      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 [duckduckgo.com].

      • by h4rr4r (612664) on Friday February 22, 2013 @10:56AM (#42979379)

        Of course.
        The defense industry in every nation needs an enemy. The Iranians talk shit about the Israelis so they can get money for fake planes. The Israelis talk shit about the Palestinians so they can get money for real ones and now that we are the sole superpower we have to make due with terrorism to spend billions on weapons designed to fight soviets.

        These are all real threats, just blown way out of proportion and handled the wrong way to ensure maximum expenditure.

        • by thogard (43403) on Friday February 22, 2013 @11:08AM (#42979517) Homepage

          Just for that comment, I've marked you as a "foe" on the /. comment system.

          Now where is my defence money?

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by h4rr4r (612664)

            Now you need to go home and explain that to your family. Cancel your kids/wife/dog's health insurance and find a gun store that will sell you weapons at inflated prices with a nice hefty kickback. You should also get the kids into a cheaper school or try to get the school tax rate lowered so you can spend this money on "defense" as well.

          • Yeah, notorious traitorous pinkos like Ike and Smedley Butler were just spouting off and didn't know what they were talking about.


            Also, you need somewhere to burn off excess young male testosterone-addled population to prevent social instability. (Look at contemporary China. A Billion young men that can't find wives. Oh crap...) You can go all Kipling and phrase it in terms of heroism and derring-do. It's all still just keeping that same wheel spinning.
        • We're the sole superpower? May I invite you to wake up and smell the coffee?

          We, the United States, are the fading has-been superpower. We still have our delusions of grandeur, and we are indeed still quite powerful. But, we are the has-been.

          The up and coming superpower is China, without a doubt. With economic clout comes the ability to build huge navies, huge armies, and huge air forces - and possible space forces. China's plan of assymetric warfare, known as "Assassin's Mace" is still a few years from

          • by h4rr4r (612664)

            China does not even have a blue water navy.

            They will be broke before they get one. You can't keep building houses no one is buying and giving away your resources by dumping products on the market. They will either be forced to reform or they will be broke.

            There is no nation that could take on the US Armed forces.

            Nature abhors a vacuum, not hates one. There is no such void to fill.

        • by tehcyder (746570)
          I broadly agree with you, but I think the existential threat to Israel is a real one, and not (primarily) from the Palestinians.
          • by h4rr4r (612664)

            All those threats are real, just far over inflated and made worse intentionally. Israel falls right into that category. They have entire policial parties that would fail if not for these over inflated threats.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by smooth wombat (796938)

        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?

        • 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?

          Jesus Christ, but some folks sure are paranoid.

          Bit o' wisdom: No one is trying to attack you. Just because a government claims someone is, does not make it so.

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by smooth wombat (796938)

            9/11 says otherwise. So do the hordes of documents recovered at Bin Laden's compound. So do the daily speeches from various Imams, religious leaders, political leaders and sundry others throughout the world. So do postings from numerous organizations. So do the thwarted attempts at car and suicide bombings.

            Most importantly, so do the words from the people we have killed wherein they have stated their goal is to attack the U.S.

            Or are you saying all those people are merely plants by the CIA?

            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by CanHasDIY (1672858)

              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 mak

      • by medcalf (68293) on Friday February 22, 2013 @11:21AM (#42979659) Homepage
        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?
        • by Alioth (221270)

          You might be able to justify the "collateral damage" by saying it's the target's fault for being around other people and not distinctly marking themselves as a target.

          However, the ten or so other people who got killed at the same time have families. Many of the members of these families probably couldn't give a damn about the terrorist's cause. However, now they've just had a family member wiped out by a drone strike. Put yourself in their shoes. Do you think they are just going to say "Oh well, my brother

          • by medcalf (68293) on Friday February 22, 2013 @12:31PM (#42980679) Homepage

            For the moment, let's put aside the argument of whether or not drone strikes create terrorists overall. They might, but I'm betting that we can build missiles faster than they can recruit people. Instead, I'd like to focus on your closing arguments:

            These drone strikes are not only cowardly

            In what way are drone strikes cowardly? Are air strikes cowardly? Is artillery cowardly? And even if I were to grant your assumption of cowardice, what obligates me to fight on the same ground as the enemy? Why should I play to his strengths? Am I supposed to hijack airliners and fly them into houses in Pakistan, because that's the best jihadis can do? Or send suicide bombers and plant roadside bombs, because those are their most effective means of fighting? War is not an arena for fairness. War is an awful thing, and the best thing that can be done is to end it as fast as possible, and doing that requires killing the enemy until he realizes that you will not stop, and he will not prevail, and his only option is to quit fighting. Frankly, the only problem I see with the drone strikes is that they are too slow. (Great for killing leaders, but not so good at ending the overall problem.)

            they are morally questionable when they are going to have such "collateral damage"

            I already addressed that one. The morally questionable behavior is that which puts civilians at risk: the jihadis fighting without uniforms and hiding amongs civilians. If it were otherwise, the enemy need only strap children to his tanks and roll forward to beat you. The purpose of the rules about perfidy is to protect civilians from harm, and it is the enemy, not us, who are endangering those civilians. Their choices are to stop fighting us, to follow the laws of war, or to be responsible for the deaths of the civilians they shelter among. They have chosen the latter. We are not thereby required to not fight them there, and indeed it would be morally reprehensible to do so because it would endanger future civilian lives by increasing the benefit to enemies of hiding among civilians.

            at best they are a recruiting sargeant for the terrorist's cause

            Possibly so, but what is the alternative? To not fight? Hell, we've effectively given the jihadis most of what they wanted over the past couple of years, most notably with the abandonment of the Musharraf regime, pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the war against Libya. All that we need to do to complete the agenda that they originally attacked us for is to throw the Saudis and Jordanians under the bus, and they've nearly completed their first major objective: the overthrow of the regimes in the area and their replacement by regimes unwilling or unable to contest the jihadi cause. Their second major objective, establishing a caliphate, would doubtless follow soon thereafter, where "soon" means after a long, bloody war between Sunni and Shi'a that makes the Reformation look like a Sunday picnic.

            But hey, at least the jihadis wouldn't be fighting us, right? Except that they would, and for the same reason they fight Israel or India or the many other places they fight: it builds jihadi street cred to attack the infidels just as much as it does to spread Islam to new regions. So of course they would continue to attack us, as a means of increasing their domestic support in their war against other jihadi factions. So really, we're back to a very old dictum: we may not be interested in war, but war is interested in us.

      • by Type44Q (1233630)

        It is like those holding the reins want to create terrorists

        It's reportedly a lot cheaper than hiring and training them yourself.

      • 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

        Bankers get a lot of hate (and rightfully so) for stealing from the public. But at least they're efficient about stealing and it doesn't involve international murder^H^H^H^H^ collateral damage. I'd much rather the MIC just takes the money and pocket it directly rather than leading us into wars in order to get a fraction of the money.

      • One attack on US soil terrifies Americans, so the response is a multi-decade long terror campaign in brown countries. Sound fair (and balanced!)

        "This drone strike brought to you by Fox News!"

      • It is like those holding the reins want to create terrorists

        I know it is The Onion, but it is rather insightful.
        http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-bomb-capable-of-creating-1500-new-terrorists-i,8778/ [theonion.com]

        To any Americans out there. Most of the the "terrorists" hate you for VERY good reasons. Mostly things your government have done in or too their countries.

  • With the lurking and ever-increasing possibility (and use?) of drones in the US not for strikes but simply to keep a "watchful eye" on the civilian population, a more aware and less surveilled American public may be an unintended positive outcome of the war on terror. (Thanks, al-Qaeda.)
  • by OzPeter (195038) on Friday February 22, 2013 @10:47AM (#42979281)

    The Prepper community in the US taking tips from Al-Quaeda or maybe even exchanging information.

  • by hesaigo999ca (786966) on Friday February 22, 2013 @10:48AM (#42979285) Homepage Journal

    Now all the anti terrorist agency has to do is read this thread and see all the people interested in avoiding drones, and have a list of possible terrorist suspects....
    I am just waiting for that knock on my door now...... in 3....2....1....

  • by jehan60188 (2535020) on Friday February 22, 2013 @10:56AM (#42979377)

    impressed that it's all on one page, instead of spread out with one tip per page, and advertisements after every 5 pages

  • Easy solution (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sparticus789 (2625955) on Friday February 22, 2013 @11:04AM (#42979479) Journal

    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.

    • by OzPeter (195038)

      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.

      Sooooo ....

      The first rule of Al-Quaeda is don't talk about Al-Quaeda

      That sounds familiar.

    • by Krneki (1192201)

      No, the best way to avoid drone strike is not to be where USA decide to carpet bomb the region for whatever reason they choose to. After all we don't know why they are still present in Iraq, they said it was because of the weapon of the mass destruction, but since none was found, what the FUCK are they still doing there?

    • by dkleinsc (563838)

      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.

      What's the best way to not be killed by a drone strike when a bunch of Al Qaeda people move into your neighborhood even though you want nothing to do with them?

      • What's the best way to not be killed by a drone strike when a bunch of Al Qaeda people move into your neighborhood even though you want nothing to do with them?

        Bomb shelter which can only be accessed through a small panel underneath your kitchen sink.

        • by Sentrion (964745)

          Except the presence of such a shelter will be considered defacto proof that you too are in fact a terrorist as well.

      • by Gabrill (556503)

        When Al Qaeda move in, they bring a combat zone with them. You don't get a choice there. When you're in a combat zone, you do have some choices. You can choose sides, and further the side that benefits you, or you can not choose sides and become collateral damage.

        • by Sentrion (964745)

          Or you can leave. Not always easy, but half the Muslim world seems to be migrating away from war zones to live in Europe, Canada, and even the USA.

        • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

          Somehow I doubt that would wash if the CIA found a terrorist at a wedding in the US and decided to drone strike it. "They must have known he was a terrorist and chose to stand in the blast radius of our missile" probably won't be an acceptable response.

      • Leave. Sometimes GTFO is the right choice. Basic military strategy: where your opponent is strong and you are weak, avoid confrontation.

        This isn't always easy or even possible, especially if it turns out that (say) your husband and all his friends are terrorists, but it's the clear choice for the civilian. I like my house, but if a doomsday cult moved in next door I'd find somewhere else to stay until they had their shootout with the FBI.
    • by zakkie (170306)

      Or a family member, relative, visiting friend or neighbour of an al-Qaeda member.

  • Oblig xkcd (Score:5, Funny)

    by Plumpaquatsch (2701653) on Friday February 22, 2013 @11:07AM (#42979509) Journal

    Or rather a What-If: http://what-if.xkcd.com/5/ [xkcd.com]

    What if there was a robot apocalypse? How long would humanity last?
    —Rob Lombino

    • I'm pretty sure that any robot apocalypse that resulted in high human casualties would also create high numbers of zombies. Now the big question is when the robot apocalypse causes the zombie apocalypse, which side comes out ahead?
  • tl;dr: the list (Score:5, Informative)

    by arielCo (995647) on Friday February 22, 2013 @11:14AM (#42979591)

    It's mostly about hiding from the drones, "jamming" their communications (low tech), and general asymmetric-warfare advice:

    1 – It is possible to know the intention and the mission of the drone by using the Russian-made “sky grabber [wikipedia.org]” device to infiltrate the drone’s waves and the frequencies. The device is available in the market for $2,595 and the one who operates it should be a computer know-how.
    2 – Using devices that broadcast frequencies or pack of frequencies to disconnect the contacts and confuse the frequencies used to control the drone. The Mujahideen have had successful experiments using the Russian-made “Racal [wikipedia.org].”
    3 – Spreading the reflective pieces of glass on a car or on the roof of the building.
    4 – Placing a group of skilled snipers to hunt the drone, especially the reconnaissance ones because they fly low, about six kilometers or less.
    5 – Jamming of and confusing of electronic communication using the ordinary water-lifting dynamo fitted with a 30-meter copper pole.
    6 – Jamming of and confusing of electronic communication using old equipment and keeping them 24-hour running because of their strong frequencies and it is possible using simple ideas of deception of equipment to attract the electronic waves devices similar to that used by the Yugoslav army when they used the microwave (oven) in attracting and confusing the NATO missiles fitted with electromagnetic searching devices.
    7 – Using general confusion methods and not to use permanent headquarters.
    8 – Discovering the presence of a drone through well-placed reconnaissance networks and to warn all the formations to halt any movement in the area.
    9 – To hide from being directly or indirectly spotted, especially at night.
    10 – To hide under thick trees because they are the best cover against the planes.
    11 – To stay in places unlit by the sun such as the shadows of the buildings or the trees.
    12 – Maintain complete silence of all wireless contacts.
    13 – Disembark of vehicles and keep away from them especially when being chased or during combat.
    14 – To deceive the drone by entering places of multiple entrances and exits.
    15 – Using underground shelters because the missiles fired by these planes are usually of the fragmented anti-personnel and not anti-buildings type.
    16 – To avoid gathering in open areas and in urgent cases, use building of multiple doors or exits.
    17 – Forming anti-spies groups to look for spies and agents.
    18 – Formation of fake gatherings such as using dolls and statutes to be placed outside false ditches to mislead the enemy.
    19 – When discovering that a drone is after a car, leave the car immediately and everyone should go in different direction because the planes are unable to get after everyone.
    20 – Using natural barricades like forests and caves when there is an urgent need for training or gathering.

    • 21 – In frequently targeted areas, use smoke as cover by burning tires.
      22 – As for the leaders or those sought after, they should not use communications equipment because the enemy usually keeps a voice tag through which they can identify the speaking person and then locate him.

      Not too different from the first 20, though.

    • by rcamans (252182)

      Since the drones are flying over Amerika, maybe we should enhance this document. Like DIY RF jammer designs, High power EMP cannons, maps of Amerikan drone bases and drone flight control centers, drone tracking software / hardware, etc. Any other ideas?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by T.E.D. (34228)

      4 – Placing a group of skilled snipers to hunt the drone, especially the reconnaissance ones because they fly low, about six kilometers or less.

      That would be a really neat trick, since the acknowledged World's longest sniper kill [gizmag.com] is only about 2 and a half kilometers.

      I hope for their sake the rest of these ideas of theirs work better.

    • Re:tl;dr: the list (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Pf0tzenpfritz (1402005) on Friday February 22, 2013 @01:12PM (#42981241) Journal
      WTF might

      the ordinary water-lifting dynamo fitted with a 30-meter copper pole

      be? The water-lifting dynamo is obvious, but "30-meter copper pole"? Some sort of bipolar antenna?

      • by arielCo (995647)

        I wondered about that one too. Maybe they intend to broadcast motor commutator noise, but I'm not sure how that would work or how long they'll last as shining RF beacon that in opposition to the rest of the tips.

  • by Lumpy (12016) on Friday February 22, 2013 @11:25AM (#42979727) Homepage

    Get yourself TWO "space blankets" and separate the two with a regular blanket. put it over you and go. You have about 60-120 seconds before your body heat will raise the outer blanket above background temperatures.

    This trick has been used to fool FLIR cameras for a very long time and is easily carried unlike a 6'X6' piece of glass that is far more effective at it and a lot longer duration.

    Also be sure you are not a moron and wearing "flip flops" or other crap shoes that allow a lot of heat to escape and leave thermal footprints on the ground.

    Note: if they are using FLIR and searchlights, you need to cover the outisde space blanket with a couple layers of camo netting or you will stand out as a giant silver alien.

  • Where from I can buy this Dodge Drone, for how much?
  • From the point of view of the robotic overlords, John Connor was a terrorist. Better that be good dodging drones and ex-governors.
  • If al-Qaeda does not use mobile comms, then why is Big Brother monitoring mobile comms? Dumb question...
    • Worst logic ever. The reason they aren't using mobile communication is because we are monitoring it. We are denying them a valuable logistical tool.
  • Umbrella? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kwerle (39371) <kurt@CircleW.org> on Friday February 22, 2013 @11:56AM (#42980163) Homepage Journal

    Seriously.

    I wonder why using an umbrella hasn't become a political statement in countries where drone strikes are a concern. A couple of 10's of thousands of black umbrellas with a picture of a fist, middle finger raised, printed on the top so they're all identical. Just leave 'em at the doors to be picked up by the next person leaving.

    And it protects you from the sun!

  • "New models of drones, such as the Harfung used by the French or the MQ-9 "Reaper," sometimes have infrared sensors that can pick up the heat signature of a car whose engine has just been shut off."

    I sense a great new market opportunity for Tesla Motors!

  • by Frankie70 (803801) on Friday February 22, 2013 @01:20PM (#42981357)

    Title of the AP article - "Al-Qaida tipsheet on avoiding drones found in Mali"

    Tip #1
    Don't go to Mali

    Tip #2
    See Tip #1

  • by cellocgw (617879) <cellocgw@@@gmail...com> on Friday February 22, 2013 @01:30PM (#42981459) Journal

    Remember their great sketch about finding the man hiding in the field? 'specially the part with the narrator blowing up one bush--no go -- blow up the next one -- no go -- blow up the last one -- got him!

  • by AdamHaun (43173) on Friday February 22, 2013 @01:44PM (#42981651) Journal

    There's a paragraph near the end that suggests retaliation through widespread kidnapping:

    I think these measures are capable, with God’s help, of disabling the new strategy of the American army at the medium or long-range levels. This is not all we have. There is the golden solution that shortens the long distances and through which we can bring back the pressure of the American public opinion in a more active way depending on the strategy of kidnapping in exchange for the drone strategy and we should not stop until they stop their strategy which will enable all the supporter of jihad to take part in defeating Petraeus and his new strategy. We start kidnapping Western citizens in any spot in the world, whether in the Islamic Maghreb, Egypt, Iraq or any other easy kidnapping places and the only demand is the halt of attacks on civilians in Yemen which is a just and humanitarian demand that will create world support and a public opinion pressure in America as they are being hurt again. We, therefore, aim at the core of the nation’s strategy which if failed, America, will accordingly collapse. We also are taking part in laying a block in the promising Islamic State in the Arab peninsula.

    Seems like that's important, but the AP didn't pay any attention to it...

  • by Ukab the Great (87152) on Friday February 22, 2013 @02:33PM (#42982145)

    "In this film we hope to show how not to be seen. This is Mr. Mohammed Quadrallah of 2345 Ibn Ali Avenue, Lashkar Gah, Helmand province, Afghanistan. He can not be seen. Now I am going to ask him to take the carpet off his pickup truck. Mr. Quadrallah, will you please take the carpet off."

    (In the distance Mr Quadrallah takes off a pile of carpets from a pickup truck, which is followed by a drone strike followed by Wilhelm scream)

    "This demonstrates the value of not being seen."

Recursion is the root of computation since it trades description for time.

Working...