al-Qaeda's 22 Tips and Tricks To Dodge Drones 303
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?"
sounds like a great mythbusters episode... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Second type of target... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Hide from IR cameras on drones. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Umbrella? (Score:5, Interesting)
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!
Re:Second type of target... (Score:5, Interesting)
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:
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.)
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.
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.
Re:tl;dr: the list (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
sounds like Monty Python to me (Score:4, Interesting)
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!
Re:Busted: Hiding behind civilians doesn't stop th (Score:3, Interesting)
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.