Military Drones Contract Keylogger Virus

[Shadow-Phoenix]

Skynet is assuming control

 

[Treblaine]

For christ's sake, I wasn't talking about what I think war is actually like, I was just trying to explain my view on the morality of it all.

Well I think your morality is contradictory and shallow.

Also, can you explain why our own troops dying is more of a blow to the human race than one of the enemy dying? what entitles us to disregard the effect of the death of a misguided extremist, but to regard the death of one of our own as a far greater tragedy?

Err, because they are misguided extremist! Why else?

These extremists are enemies of any human who disagrees with their delusions (which is most humans including most Muslims). These extremists endorse and practice premeditated murder of children who are taught in any school other than one that teaches their oppressive delusions. They are oppressors of humanity. If they get their way, humans suffer. They will suffer for generations.

And these UAV attacks don't attack the young who are told lies, they target the originator of the lies, those who give the order to burn down a school full of children. Those who give the order to execute the jewish journalist. Death comes to those who give the order for others to go on suicidal shooting sprees while they sit where they assume they are safe from any repercussion.

Our soldiers are fighting against that. It IS a tragedy when each one of them is killed by those sick fuckers and their death cult.

It is a death cult. All of human life is nothing but a means to an end of their delusion that "god will sort it out" the revel in how if everyone died they will go to heaven and everyone else will go to hell.

That's the moral dimension to using Unmanned Bombers.

I don't agree with the Taliban by any means, and I would rather see the Taliban wiped from the face of the planet.

But not the MEN. No, the Taliban is a construct based around ideas, which are fed to some gullible and deluded people. I try to justify the war by pointing out the protection of innocents, and I can agree with your sentiment, but it's still tragic that they have to die. after all, these are ordinay men, led astray by propaganda, hatred, ignorance. Only a select few of a group like that, the manipulators who start them, can be said to be bad to the core (although I'd still debate that). The death of a man is no less tragic if he died because he was misguided, or he died because he was protecting innocents. I guess that's my own ultra-lefty side showing there.

Anyway, All I'm saying is that a peacekeeping operation should remain exactly that. If we use excessive force to intentionally attack and eliminate insurgents, then fair play, we can protect civillians.... but then, that's the kind of military action that causes grieving relatives and unintentional collateral damage, leading to the creation of more extremists....

I guess you see where I'm going there. I suppose I used the worst wording I could have possibly chosen when I tried to argue in favour of "equal footing" that doesn't make sense, granted. I should have used a different argument.

But still, I don't think we can remove our own men from combat that much, as a matter of some ill-defined principle I'm trying to work out just now. *thinks hard*

Damnit, I KNOW there's a reason I beleive this. I guess my view that the death of a man is no less tragic regardless of what he did or stood for is the prevailing factor in this belief. I don't think we have the right, even if we're doing the right thing. "we're justified in removing humans from the fight, but they are not" just doesn't fly with me, not in the slightest.

This death cult is fuelled my more than delusion, it is fuelled by sadistic bloodlust. These individuals love to kill and to send their victims - as they see it - to burn in hell. And it doesn't matter who. Anyone. And they are delighted that THEY PERSONALLY will have fantastic rewards in death. No altruism. No collective ideals. That is not deluded to think what they are doing is right, it should be apparent to any moral person that deliberately sending someone to burn in hell for eternity is wrong thing and to kill others justified by your own eternal reward is pure selfishness.

These are not good people led astray. These are BAD people motivated to do HORRIFIC things.

Excusing the murder of children, believing they will be sent to hell, for personal benefit of (as they believe) a glorious afterlife? Utter selfishness in the EXTREME!

"peacekeeping operation should remain exactly that."

The war in Afghanistan was never a "peacekeeping operation" it was a War Winning operation! Destroy Al Qaeda. Defeat the Taliban. Forever. Taliban soldiers cannot hold their OWN LIVES to ransom when they are running offensive operations, they must be removed from the fight at every opportunity either through death or surrender, and considering the stakes the onus is on THEM to surrender.

"Damnit, I KNOW there's a reason I beleive this."

I think the problem might be how you try to rationalise the death of our own soldiers in universals absolutist and purely objective terms.

"we're justified in removing humans from the fight, but they are not" just doesn't fly with me, not in the slightest.

Stop trying to look at this as if both sides are right to fight. Stop acting like you can rationalise with the Taliban and that somehow you are above all this and can look at it without any stake in it, that you can detach yourself and isolate just one life ending on either side. No. Taliban and Al Qaeda practice as a death cult. A death for them means one less agent of fear and destruction.

Get this into your head, they are The Enemy.

Do you understand what The Enemy is?

I think this understanding is an inevitable result of simultaneously the media's dogmatic commitment to being pedantically "neutral" and the military's utter refusal to use any kind of propaganda, even a marketing department to set the vocabulary. So in case you haven't figured it out, let me spell in out for you:

Al Qaeda is The Enemy

The Taliban are our Enemy

Enough with these pedantically neutral terms like "an insurgent" or "a gunman". It's The Enemy!
-Enemy forces hold that town
-an enemy agent assassinated the Colonel
-the enemy was seen in the area planting a roadside bomb.

Journalist know full well if they get captured by the Taliban they'll get executed live on the internet, yet they keep referring to The Taliban and Al Qaeda in neutral terms like "insurgents". It's like they are preparing themselves for an almost inevitable withdrawal, no conceit that we should (or even should not) be fighting this war, just that THEY are fighting. And if later they aren't, so what?

Be GLAD when your enemy is defeated. And have no delusions that The Taliban and Al Qaeda are not your enemy, because YOU are their intended victim! They are the enemy of everything that you stand for.

You mourn the Death of a British Soldier morn than that the old man who passes away in an old folks home because that soldier fought for you, he fought for every free person against the tyranny and wanton death of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. He died for something that The Taliban so bitterly resists, that their death cult is evil.

Even objectively, The Taliban are not honourable in the least. In the highest level of negotiations they sent their top representative to the top Afghan politician, and assassinated him with a bomb planted in his Turban. Can you get any lower? They assassinated the chief Democratic agent for peace in an utter betrayal of trust in peace. Can it be any more obvious that the Taliban are beyond any level of reason? So many claims of defection have been nothing but cruel assassination plots with suicide bombs, the closest thing to negotiating with the Taliban turned out to be a con man who ran off with a load of money.

You Do Not Negotiate With Terrorists

It's not a dogmatic rule, it's advice against futility.

Negotiating a surrender or compromise is impossible. The Taliban don't want either. They want death. For everyone. Don't be under any delusions that these are somehow not bad people. The only way to defeat them is through war, and that means killing them and capturing them in the few cases where you can.

 

[Treblaine]

In case you missed it, I still support military action against them. And I'm not trying to be aloof. A terrorist attempts to kill a child, you shoot him. Don't get me wrong. I just don't think that the beliefs they fight for make them evil. The beliefs themselves? sure. but the man himself? would he still do this if he was brought up and educated well?

to re-iterate: by all means, they need to be stopped. But I don't think that their deaths should be made light of any more than our own side's losses. After all, their lives could have been dedicated to something good. That's the reason why i think that losses on both sides are equally ragic. But don't get me wrong, I DO support the war, regardless of the complex and questonable political motivations. Less Taliban = good thing. it's just a shame we need to do it with bullets.

Just because I believe that all death is equally tragic does not mean I want to elevate myself above this conflict. I could never take part in it, but I don't act as though that puts me above it. Someone has to do it. I'm not trying to put both sides in the right or rationalise the Taliban's beliefs, I must have been communicating myself very poorly if that's how it came accross because I usually despise those aloof little twats who seperate themselves from humanity for the sake of a bit of self-importance, and had no desire to represent that view.

I need sleep. Tell you what, tomrrow I'll try to clean up my argument till it makes some kind of sense, and then fire it back to you if you're still up for discussing this later on. It's a talk that's worth having.

"I just don't think that the beliefs they fight for make them evil."

How the fuck can believing it is not just acceptable but necessary to murder children, teachers journalists and even their own wives, believing enough to fight to the death... not make the person evil?

This is not like the German soldier who arguably is unaware of the Holocaust or is given no choice but to fight because he is conscripted and told he will face certain death in a Gulag if he surrenders. They are as bad as the SS guards who run the death camps, they know all the atrocities they commit and they sign away their soul.

Look, if we mourn every Taliban we kill then you have to realise how that will destroy OUR morale? We aren't robots, if we are supposed to regret every Taliban who dies (even though it prevents further death and suffering of innocents) then that only encourages evil by discouraging us to act against it.

"it's just a shame we need to do it with bullets."

Are you endorsing a massive program of propaganda to lead an ideologically counter Taliban propaganda? You've already confessed to having an "ultra-lefty" side, are you willing to accept a program of indoctrination, smearing and emotional use of force? Because as far as I know lefties are UTTERLY PARANOID of any military sort using any kind of propaganda, they seem to have the (frankly deluded) idea that the populace could figure it out for themselves while the Taliban feed lies of a hedonistic afterlife, and how they must shed blood of innocents to get there.

Of course all death is equally tragic, in an absolutist way. People die all the time. Ever walked past an old folks home or a hospital? Probably someone died in there that day. Every day hundreds of thousands of people die. But when a British Soldier is killed by a Taliban, that is especially tragic as it is an incidence of evil prevailing over good, one count where the enemy is one step closer to victory.

And you know how they are going to get it, by the public trying to detach themselves. That it's "not their war" that it's "not worth it".

The soldier's death is still "A tragedy" but a tragedy in the meaningless sense, in the sense that every death is a tragedy, nothing to care about. They died for nothing. This is how the public will convince itself that we should let the Taliban win in Afghanistan.

 

[ScRaT_the_destroyer]

in all srsness, if it has a computer operating system it can be hacked no questions asked (there are vulnerabilities inherent in all pieces of software. not all vulnerabilities can be covered by the programmer as some may require a very rare and very specific set of parameters to come together at the same time, [the same way we have crazy glitches on some pc games on one computer and not on others]

i wonder how this got into their system as surely any computer system that kills people must be absolutely bullet proof with regards to what can be installed to it, accessed from it and executed from it etc etc.

 

[antipunt]

Was any one else thinking of combining this picture

Spoiler

with this scenario?


>_>

 

[Zeetchmen]

InterAirplay is a troll, stop feeding him!

As for the topic, wonder if we will see Drones up on thepiratebay anytime soon

 

[Treblaine]

in all srsness, if it has a computer operating system it can be hacked no questions asked (there are vulnerabilities inherent in all pieces of software. not all vulnerabilities can be covered by the programmer as some may require a very rare and very specific set of parameters to come together at the same time, [the same way we have crazy glitches on some pc games on one computer and not on others]

i wonder how this got into their system as surely any computer system that kills people must be absolutely bullet proof with regards to what can be installed to it, accessed from it and executed from it etc etc.

Not just computers PEOPLE can be hacked as well.

In a round about way.

The plot of Dr Strangelove was all about B52 bomber crews being "hacked" by basically being tricked into believing that there was a nuclear war and their mission was to deliver a massive counter attack. Computers are hacked the same way, they are given a very limited order that they think is genuine and must be followed.

 

[Sucal]

Snip

I find it curious that you claim using UAV's is immoral. Especially claiming it will increase the number of dead on the enemies side. What you seem to be missing is the use of AUAV's as a precision weapon. If you send a squad of troopers in to attack, then both sides are going to take massive casualties. If you send a UAV in to attack, then you can selectively target only the enemy leadership, while avoiding any possible loss of life to those who are only defending their people/countries.

Personally I want the UAV technology to spread all around the world, so that all sides can have it. Namely because unlike with a squad of soldiers, a UAV doesn't target the fighters, instead it can be a precision instrument that targets the leadership instead. So that while politicians might stay at home and order those on the front lines to fight without them, a UAV is a far more personal risk.

While people are more then willing to risk other peoples lives, the use of UAV's means the normally hidden leadership have to question whether or not they want to risk their own life. Once you remove the head, the rest of the body will fall. No more killing hundreds of soldiers just to capture the leadership and sentence them to jail time, as if they were somehow worth more then their men.

 

[John the Gamer]

Yay for skynet! Awww... Too soon?

I'm betting they'll blame this "virus" for all the civilians they've bombed with those things. 'Collateral damage? - Wasn't us! It was the Virus!'

EDIT: Friggin' Ninja'd on the skynet thing. Go figure.

It's a keylogger. It can't be used to control the drones it just means that whoever put it in will be able to tell what the drones are being used for.

I know, but the military will be able to shove all responsibility it's way somehow.

 

[harvz]

you know, if it keeps coming back, that means that the drones probably aren't the only things on the military's setup that has the key logger...or they want their free space ship cursor, it's just so annoying that they keep or wiping the system and each time they have to download it again.

 

[oliver.begg]

question? who the fuck said that war was meant to be "fair" its about dicking the opposition as much as possible while suffering the least amount of causalities/damage as possible.

Don't die for your country, make the enemy die for there's. (perferable by shoting them from behind, silently without anyone knowing)

 

[A BigCup of Tea]

Hopefully this means that we won't totally turn the air force into the drone force. It would be kind of boring to watch a war movie and just have people sitting at computer screens. Don't get me wrong I love drones I just don't want them totally eliminating fighter pilots and such.

Edit: also I bet you $100 that China is behind this.

You sir have yourself a bet!!

So does this mean that whoever installed the virus can see everything the military can see??

 

[Thaluikhain]

Also, can you explain why our own troops dying is more of a blow to the human race than one of the enemy dying? what entitles us to disregard the effect of the death of a misguided extremist, but to regard the death of one of our own as a far greater tragedy?

Err, because they are misguided extremist! Why else?

These extremists are enemies of any human who disagrees with their delusions (which is most humans including most Muslims). These extremists endorse and practice premeditated murder of children who are taught in any school other than one that teaches their oppressive delusions. They are oppressors of humanity. If they get their way, humans suffer. They will suffer for generations.

Er, that's sorta assuming that everyone targeted by UAVs is an extremist, and not just someone who has decided to defend their homeland against what they see as a foreign invader.

Determining whom is which, is of course, more or less impossible and as it happens, unnecessary. Like you say, they are the enemy, taking up arms for any reason comes with the knowledge that you might be targeted by something or other, though presumably it'd be a great comfort to them to be killed in an airstrike involving piloted warplanes, rather than remote control ones.

 

[Aeshi]

<Insert joke about "Military "Intelligence"" here>

 

[xEightBitPlayerx]

I don't see how this could end badly at all.

 

[RadiusXd]

Considering that the use of unmanned Military Vehichles is actually a war crime, we may as well just sit back and watch these drones get slowly destroyed by viruses. I, for one, welcome the idea of every bloody unmanned vehicle getting taken down by a lowly virus. It'd be funny, and it'd be karmic retribution.

According to what internationally ratified law is an Unmanned Aircraft illegal for use in war or anywhere else?

if you mean under the Hague Convention well that bans the deployment of bombs from ALL AIRCRAFT! And that agreement has been de-facto void since the 1910's.

And getting beyond any legal technicalities, what is so barbaric about using a remotely operated aircraft to deliver munitions with pinpoint accuracy, compared to planting roadside bombs? Or simply shooting at an enemy combatant with a rifle?

I understand why using poison gas is a war-crime, as it is indiscriminately applied over a wide area where it does not directly target enemy combatants and can lead to escalation where the danger of mass use against civilians is high.

But considering the agreed intentions of war, what is the problem with remotely piloted aircraft for attack?

Because using remotely piloted aircaft for an attack against living targets removes the factor of possible loss of life from one side of the conflict. Essentially, this means that one side of the conflict no longer has to worry about potential deaths while killing the enemy, when one of these things can be flown over an immense distance via remote operator to take out the enemy.

This is totally immoral. Putting one side at risk while keeping the other out of combat entirely using advanced tech that only one side has access to removes most of the need for due consideration of whether or not a battle, or even a war, should be started because suddenly the possibility of death is no longer there. I don't care how amoral the enemy is, fighting them without even putting a human in the battlefield is just plain wrong.

When the hell did any of the rules of war necessitate that you HAVE to put yourself in harms way in order to deal a blow to the enemy?

Snipers, Artillery, roadside bombs, tanks, machine guns with interlocking fields of fire, every military strategy is about dealing the maximum damage to the enemy with the minimum risk to yourself.

Are you suggesting that if there was some way that all of our soldiers could be made 100% bullet and Bomb proof you would oppose that?

You would oppose a method that would prevent any more of your country's soldiers returning home in a coffin? Would you oppose it SIMPLY because our soldiers MUST be in harms way in order to conduct the business of war? It may be a tactical necessity to put them in harms way to achieve an objective, but it is no moral necessity.

This is totally immoral.

No, this is totally unfair, but that's what war is. You think roadside bombs are fair? You think "banning" them is any kind of solution?

If you think "war" is everyone dressing in bright colours, lining up in front of each other in an orderly fashion and taking turns to shoot at each other, that is not the "most moral" of war. That is a careless waste of life. Arbritrarily putting your soldiers in harms way just to "make it fair" utterly betrays the purpose of war.

Do not mistake the unavoidably of soldiers dying in combat with their necessity that they MUST die as a matter of morality.

War is about winning!

The rules of war forbid things that do not serve victory but are merely vindictive. Like mistreating prisoners. It is actually in the army's benefit to offer to treat enemy prisoners with decency as if there is the threat of summary execution or torture then they will be likely to surrender, but will never surrender, will fight to the very end far beyond the point of defending their objectives if its the only way to avoid a terrible fate.

For christ's sake, I wasn't talking about what I think war is actually like, I was just trying to explain my view on the morality of it all.

Also, can you explain why our own troops dying is more of a blow to the human race than one of the enemy dying? what entitles us to disregard the effect of the death of a misguided extremist, but to regard the death of one of our own as a far greater tragedy?

because they are the enemy, you said it yourself. its not like we have souls, these are complex groupings of neurons arranged in a way that means the person is going to try killing everyone who doesn't agree with his views because an imaginary friend of his promised a stay at a resort after he dies.
they want to kill us. fuck em.

 

[ssgt splatter]

Forget mass sentience, the real sci-fi horror story comes from the idea of a bored scriptkid taking control of a flying machine armed with heat-seeking missiles and a radar signature that borders on invisibility.

Don't even put the idea in their heads. The last thing we need is some idiot playing with something that could really hurt someone.

Why am I thinking of an episode of American Dad right now?

 

[Strazdas]

And this is why a hacker is more dangerous than an army.
also, why not just format the whole drones memory, that would surely kill the virus. it cant be a hardware virus, unless the drone had a "dissapeared for an hour" thing and even then you could find it.