×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

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

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the john-connor-consulting dept.

The Military 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?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

303 comments

sounds like a great mythbusters episode... (5, Interesting)

Angturil (1276488) | about a year ago | (#42979143)

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

Re:sounds like a great mythbusters episode... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42979185)

GET TO THE CHOPPA!!!

Re:sounds like a great mythbusters episode... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42979239)

Not if the heat sensor can see your steps going to the tree.

Re:sounds like a great mythbusters episode... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42980095)

Doesn't work like that.

Re:sounds like a great mythbusters episode... (2)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year ago | (#42980547)

1. Even if you could see that, ROE would prevent engaging because they can't tell if you're a hostile just from your footprints.
2. You can't do that anyway. You watch too much sci-fi.

Re:sounds like a great mythbusters episode... (5, Funny)

Dupple (1016592) | about a year ago | (#42979363)

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

Re:sounds like a great mythbusters episode... (5, Insightful)

MartinSchou (1360093) | about a year ago | (#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

Busted: Hiding behind civilians doesn't stop them (5, Informative)

dtmancom (925636) | about a year ago | (#42979527)

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.

Re:Busted: Hiding behind civilians doesn't stop th (2)

Sentrion (964745) | about a year ago | (#42980119)

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 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.

Re:Busted: Hiding behind civilians doesn't stop th (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#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:sounds like a great mythbusters episode... (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#42979919)

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".

Re:sounds like a great mythbusters episode... (1)

ZankerH (1401751) | about a year ago | (#42980343)

>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

Re:sounds like a great mythbusters episode... (1)

citizenr (871508) | about a year ago | (#42980575)

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.

Re:sounds like a great mythbusters episode... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42979501)

no, as it explicitly says in TFA

Re:sounds like a great mythbusters episode... (2)

nospam007 (722110) | about a year ago | (#42980349)

"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.

Re:sounds like a great mythbusters episode... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42980563)

Indeed, from Terrorists to Tree-huggers.

'"I want the brothers in the Islamic Maghreb to know that planting trees helps the mujahedeen and gives them cover," bin Laden writes in the missive. "Trees will give the mujahedeen the freedom to move around especially if the enemy sends spying aircrafts to the area."

Of course it will be relevant (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42979161)

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

Second type of target... (5, Insightful)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | about a year ago | (#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].

Re:Second type of target... (4, Interesting)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#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.

Re:Second type of target... (5, Funny)

thogard (43403) | about a year ago | (#42979517)

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

Now where is my defence money?

Re:Second type of target... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42979593)

Just post your real name and address so I can mail you some monopoly money

Re:Second type of target... (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | about a year ago | (#42980333)

Just post your real name and address so I can mail you some monopoly money

They took out the iron to stop launderimg it, so the value went up.

Re:Second type of target... (1, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#42979613)

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.

who would know them better? (2)

Thud457 (234763) | about a year ago | (#42979769)

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.

Re:Second type of target... (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#42980261)

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 completion, but it's moving along.

China WILL dwarf us, one day. That is guaranteed, because so many of our politicians and business leaders are busy selling everything that China needs to do so.

Sole superpower, indeed. Have you never heard that nature hates a vacuum? There is a power vacuum, right now, but it won't stay a vacuum for long.

Re:Second type of target... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#42980331)

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.

Re:Second type of target... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42979389)

Obama cries on national TV over murdered children in Connecticut, while he is actively murdering hundreds of brown children in Pakistan, fucking hypocrite.

Re:Second type of target... (3, Insightful)

smooth wombat (796938) | about a year ago | (#42979403)

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?

Re:Second type of target... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42979469)

Then maybe the people shouldn't shelter, assist or allow these people to be in their villages ... those who harbor people who are trying to attack us?

What a self-fulfilling prophecy you make, you missed the findings of the report. Attack (drone strike) innocent people and you create people who hate you, i.e. "terrorists". Got a good job in the "defence" industry, have we?

Re:Second type of target... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42979723)

But the drone strikes are not trying to kill innocent people, they are trying to hit targets, targets that would use those children as shields to keep from being killed, targets that dont seem to care if they kill innocent people themselves.

Look 'im sympathetic to the argument, i don't want innocent people killed in my name, I know they all don't hate me and i don't hate them, but if people that have proven themselves to want to kill innocent people without even trying to minimize it are going to live close to innocent people, then i don't know what to tell them, someone needs to tell them to move maybe, but i don't understand what the alternative is.

Re:Second type of target... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42980403)

That is a meaningless nuance.

Say that I'm a young guy, with some brothers, sisters, cousins, and classmates. A drone comes by, and hits some of my relatives and friends. My village only has - ohhh - 30 children, and your drone has killed 7 of those 30. Guess what? I don't give one fuck WHY your drone killed my little sister, her best friend, two of my cousins, one of my not-quite-best buddies, and my two study mates. All I know is, you son of a rabid bitch, is that you killed my family and friends.

One day, when I'm allowed to cross the street by myself, I'm going to buy a gun and kill you and your countrymen, like you killed my family.

You might make cowardly statements about your intentions, but I'm going to put my gun in your face, and blow a hole through it. You will KNOW my intentions, before you die, you cur dog!

Re:Second type of target... (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year ago | (#42980623)

And thus the cycle repeats, because you'll get your ass blown up with the asses of those around you.

Who's at fault? EVERYONE. Stop pointing fingers, because it does not make you any less wrong.

Re:Second type of target... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42980407)

"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."

And how exactly are some random, uneducated villagers who live in huts with no electricity suppose to know that their particular village is a potential target for a drone strike? Do you really think that these people have such detailed knowlegde of international politics and espionage that they can easily identify "the terrorists" who have set up shop nearby? And even if they somehow could then how are they suppose to run armed terrorists out of their villages?

Re:Second type of target... (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#42980503)

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:Second type of target... (-1, Troll)

phayes (202222) | about a year ago | (#42979495)

So according to you, absolutely no drone action should be taken against terrorists who do not hesitate to kill our children because they purposefully surround themselves with theirs? No wonder the terrorists describe the west as weak...

Re:Second type of target... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42979551)

Great logic, Sherlock, According to you, it is Ok to remotely blow up thousands of innocent people/children (including the odd "terrorist"), and ignore any research that overwhelmingly indicates that your aggression makes terrorism worse and puts us all more at risk. You must be a a MIC shill...

Re:Second type of target... (4, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | about a year ago | (#42980059)

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?

Re:Second type of target... (2)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year ago | (#42980061)

You have a point. We should definitely use drones against anyone convicted in a court of law by a jury of his peers of such actions. Or do you mean we should continue to accept accusation as proof of guilt and reason enough to ignore due process before denying a person their life?

Re:Second type of target... (3, Insightful)

medcalf (68293) | about a year ago | (#42979659)

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?

Re:Second type of target... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42979767)

Why is it that drone strike advocates like yourself love to completely ignore research demonstrating that drone attacks increase terrorism, decreasing the safety of us all?

Could it be that you have a vested interest?

Re:Second type of target... (1)

medcalf (68293) | about a year ago | (#42980455)

  1. I'm not advocating drone strikes, though I don't see the difference between "drone strikes" and "air strikes".
  2. I don't know if drone strikes, or air strikes, or small arms firefights for that matter increase terrorism overall or not, though I somewhat doubt it simply because the end point of that argument is that killing your enemies doesn't win wars, and that argument would fly in the face of thousands of years of recorded history and evidence of how humans behave. Regardless, as a general rule, I'm in favor of killing enemies (not opponents; there's a difference) of the US, and since 9/11 the jihadis have been in that category.
  3. I'm an IT guy working for a company that sells women's underwear. What exactly do you think my vested interest would be, outside of American security generally, which hopefully is a vested interest for all Americans?
  4. You didn't address my argument in any fashion. Instead, you resorted to a red herring, guilt by association, an assertion without evidence, a conclusion that doesn't follow from the assertion, and poisoning the well (an insinuation that I am arguing in bad faith). I give your response a D-, and suggest you try again. Perhaps read a book on rhetoric and argumentation first.

Re:Second type of target... (2)

Alioth (221270) | about a year ago | (#42980255)

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 shouldn't have been there"? Of course not - by taking out one terrorist, you've probably turned a dozen young men from being young men who yesterday couldn't give a damn into a dozen angry young men who now want revenge against your country and feel completely justified in that desire.

These drone strikes are not only cowardly, they are morally questionable when they are going to have such "collateral damage" and at best they are a recruiting sargeant for the terrorist's cause. With every terrorist you kill like this, you probably make another dozen who take their place.

Re:Second type of target... (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | about a year ago | (#42980295)

It is like those holding the reins want to create terrorists

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

Re:Second type of target... (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year ago | (#42980599)

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.

SlashDot.org, a day old copy of DrudgeReport??? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42979199)

I've been reading /. for > 10 years now and it's getting worse and worse.
Not only are the stories horribly filtered, but this week alone I've seen 6 stories here that were featured on DrudgeReport the day before.

Not sure why I come here anymore.

Re:SlashDot.org, a day old copy of DrudgeReport??? (4, Insightful)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#42979209)

Because you enjoy complaining? Anyone else would just quietly take Slashdot off their Favorites, Bookmarks or wherever you keep the link.

Re:SlashDot.org, a day old copy of DrudgeReport??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42979271)

I'd agree with you and just remove /. from my homepages - except I wish it'd get better instead of just dropping it.
I don't enjoy complaining. I guess I just miss CmrTaco and the leadership this site used to have.

Re:SlashDot.org, a day old copy of DrudgeReport??? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42979359)

Because you enjoy complaining? Anyone else would just quietly take Slashdot off their Favorites, Bookmarks or wherever you keep the link.

No, you stupid cock gobbling piece of shit, not all of us are passive like you.

Get the fuck out of the gene pool.

Re:SlashDot.org, a day old copy of DrudgeReport??? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42980487)

Admit it, everyone. THIS ^ is the reason we still come here. It's refreshing to see imaginative usage of vocabulary that would make your elementary school teachers stroke out. Cock gobbling piece of shit, he says. Is that equal to, or superior to, a cum guzzling gutter slut? Inquiring minds want to know!

Re:SlashDot.org, a day old copy of DrudgeReport??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42979441)

Fuck you, shithead.

Muscle memory will keep me coming back here until the quickening.

Re:SlashDot.org, a day old copy of DrudgeReport??? (3, Insightful)

ak3ldama (554026) | about a year ago | (#42979301)

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.

Re:SlashDot.org, a day old copy of DrudgeReport??? (4, Insightful)

arielCo (995647) | about a year ago | (#42979451)

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.

Re:SlashDot.org, a day old copy of DrudgeReport??? (1)

Phreakiture (547094) | about a year ago | (#42979801)

Not sure why I come here anymore.

Because you like to. If you didn't, you wouldn't. If you don't, then stop.

Re:SlashDot.org, a day old copy of DrudgeReport??? (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#42980517)

Not sure why I come here anymore.

To bitch about how the old gray mare just ain't what she used ta be, obviously.

It's the reconnaissance, stupid! (2, Funny)

zenwarrior (81710) | about a year ago | (#42979213)

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.)

I can just see it now .. (2)

OzPeter (195038) | about a year ago | (#42979281)

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

Re:I can just see it now .. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42979387)

Why not? The DNC does it already.

Not really (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42979521)

The prepper movement is about one or more of self-sufficiency, being prepared for natural disasters, getting off-grid, natural building materials, raising pesticide free vegetables and fruits, free range poultry, even preparing for a social or economic collapse. It is wrong to expand all preppers into drone haters. You might as well say that Seattle is taking tips from Al-Quaeda. http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/See-what-SPD-drones-look-like-3983169.php

Re:Not really (1)

demonlapin (527802) | about a year ago | (#42979875)

There's nothing wrong with pesticide-free veggies and fruits or free-range poultry (although such things are probably not a manageable way to raise enough food to feed the entire world, the eggs at least taste considerably better), but there's no necessary connection between eating like a hippie and being a prepper - plenty of people are one but not the other. And the most serious preppers I know don't count on the surface being able to provide them with food and water... they'll have months if not years of dried or canned supplies stored away.

Re:Not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42980319)

The prepper way of life may not be achievable by everyone currently but after the Agenda 21 pogrom against over 95% of the population it will be just about the only way of life. I doubt we'll be able to continue any form of heavy industrialism with only 500 million (or 100 million, if you agree with the revision and the negative population credit program.) people left on the planet. But then that's the point of the Agenda, create a sustainable pollution free world by the end of the century.

now we have a list! (2)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | about a year ago | (#42979285)

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....

Re:now we have a list! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42979353)

Knock knock?

Re:now we have a list! (5, Funny)

Rude Turnip (49495) | about a year ago | (#42979507)

Fuck that, I'm throwing some broken glass on this thread: *:ï½¥ï¾Yâoe*:ï½¥ï¾Yâoe*:ï½¥ï¾Yâoe*:ï½¥ï¾Yâoe*:ï½¥ï¾Yâoe*:ï½¥ï¾Yâoe

all on one page?! (5, Funny)

jehan60188 (2535020) | about a year ago | (#42979377)

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

Disinformation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42979431)

My bs meter is going off.

Water Lifting Dynamo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42979465)

Can someone please explain what a "ordinary water-lifting dynamo fitted with a 30-meter copper pole" is and how it might be used to avoid drones. And where would one find a water lifting dynamo in the wilds of Tora Bora (I assume everyone is walking around with a 30 meter copper pole)?

Re:Water Lifting Dynamo? (2)

qwijibo (101731) | about a year ago | (#42979833)

It generates noise that could be interpreted as a radio signal. The whole text of that and the following entry (both related to jamming):

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.

Easy solution (2, Insightful)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about a year ago | (#42979479)

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.

Re:Easy solution (1)

OzPeter (195038) | about a year ago | (#42979549)

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.

Re:Easy solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42979987)

If someone says "stop" or goes limp, taps out the terrorism is over.

Re:Easy solution (1)

Krneki (1192201) | about a year ago | (#42979559)

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?

Re:Easy solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42979623)

There's no data (at least in the open literature) that really backs that assertion up.

Re:Easy solution (2)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year ago | (#42979631)

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?

Re:Easy solution (1)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about a year ago | (#42979711)

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.

Re:Easy solution (2)

Gabrill (556503) | about a year ago | (#42979761)

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.

Re:Easy solution (1)

demonlapin (527802) | about a year ago | (#42979955)

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.

Re:Easy solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42980259)

I don't think our drones are checking membership cards before dropping bombs on people - in this day and age, us citizens would do well to heed the advice in the article as well...

Oblig xkcd (4, Funny)

Plumpaquatsch (2701653) | about a year ago | (#42979509)

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

Re:Oblig xkcd (1)

JonahsDad (1332091) | about a year ago | (#42979647)

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?

0th Tip... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42979511)

Don't join al-Qaeda in the first place.

Robo-apocalypse? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42979525)

A phased plasma rifle in the forty watt range is your friend.

Cleaver , leak fake info (1)

raluxs (961449) | about a year ago | (#42979567)

Now when a drone sees a car covered in mats? A muddy car in the desert? A car covered in glass? They are as good as gone now.

tl;dr: the list (5, Informative)

arielCo (995647) | about a year ago | (#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.

Re:tl;dr: the list (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42979741)

CIA probably wrote this document. How hard can it be to sell them a batch of sky grabbers that transmit their location to the drones. And get money for it too...

whoops - I left out the last two (1)

arielCo (995647) | about a year ago | (#42980171)

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.

Re:tl;dr: the list (1)

rcamans (252182) | about a year ago | (#42980323)

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?

Hide from IR cameras on drones. (5, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year ago | (#42979727)

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.

Drones are beating Al Quada's ass. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42980045)

Best they have is: "We'll kidnap Westerners around the world to stop the drones."
Way to go. A couple of hundreds, thousands terrorists kidnapping 1-2 two billion opponents.

Good to see the desperation in their paper.
Can't wait to see the CIA distributing radioactive markers to Al Quada members, then they can kill each other.

(Captcha: triumphs)

So why is the US monitoring our cell phone traffic (1)

Squidlips (1206004) | about a year ago | (#42980069)

If al-Qaeda does not use mobile comms, then why is Big Brother monitoring mobile comms? Dumb question...

Re:So why is the US monitoring our cell phone traf (2)

cryptizard (2629853) | about a year ago | (#42980123)

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? (4, Interesting)

kwerle (39371) | about a year ago | (#42980163)

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 markets! (1)

magarity (164372) | about a year ago | (#42980609)

"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!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...