Yes; it was the US screwing up the endgame and treating their allies instrumentally - discarding them once they were no longer needed, leaving them to their own devices in the wrecked country. Still, it's not a huge leap of faith to imagine the indifference, callousness, shortsightedness were all a cover-up for more sinister motives. They say 'don't ascribe to malice what can be explained by stupidity', but it doesn't take a very crackpot mind to do that here. We're talking about the most powerful military in the world - it's difficult to accept such a collosal levels of incompetence instead of believing the apparent incompetence was just to hide the real intentions.

Personally, I wonder how such a toy drone compares to a bird in aircraft path...

So whom did CIA fund and train in Afghanistan in 80s, to fight against Soviets?

It's unlikely to scale that much anytime soon. Battery size -> radio range; Battery size + motor size -> power -> ability to overcome wind. Mass -> stability -> ability to overcome wind. Add to that lifting power to carry any payload.

Yes, you'll be able to get very small indoor RC quadcopters with several meters of range. But if you want to fly it over GSM while streaming from internal camera, you're not getting it smaller than your palm anytime soon.

Nowadays they detonate these in bomb chambers using an "initiating charge" (a small bomb of their own).
There was that guy who just stood for a couple hours in front of White House, with his briefcase.
They checked the briefcase with xray. They found clothes, essential business travel stuff, nothing suspicious. They detonated it anyway.

Unless you want to get into the White House clothed as a fireman.

For the outside people she'll be attempted rape victim that looks fabulous. Only "mysogynous haters" know the full story (and whoever learns, automatically is classified as one of these "mysogynous haters")

"from day one, zoe quinn faced the nastiest of sexual and mysoginistic slurs and threats."

Could you substantiate this? I mean, specifically, the number (to prove it wasn't isolated incidents) and connection to GamerGate (as in specific instances was actively disproven).

Ah, the old "Few rotten apples" argument. It's so hard to debunk. Luckily, someone
took time to collect quotes from about all leaders of one large slice of the SJWs - "3rd wave feminists". You'd be hard-pressed to find a non-rotten apple in this basket.

I'm not sure you understand how Patreon works. It's not goal-oriented like Kickstarter. It's more of "Let people throw money monthly at a creator, and the creator promises to deliver something nebulous from time to time." While in Kickstarter you're interested to see a specific completed product, in Patreon you 'show support' letting the creator 'keep doing the good job'. As result, popularity - especially victim style or activist style popularity - yields very good results.

Search these comments for 'patreon'.
Also search these comments for the word 'free' and replies to them.

As much as GP post is misguided in 'people who actually bought', but the game didn't need to be sold to earn her money.

That chick game is the single tiny point of a very big campaign, where things spun from 'gamers against bad journalism' into 'feminists against mysogynic gamers'.

GamerGate is not just about Zoe, no matter how much she'd like you to believe otherwise.

http://gamergateharassment.tum...
The actual dox are censored on that site, but not the names of twitters/tumblrs/etc that posted them, so you should be able to find the original posts that dox gamergate supporters with little effort.

Look up the gamergate article on Wikipedia. The original gaming media issue is practically nonexistent, the whole article is about the terrible mysogynists who attacked the innocent feminist activists.

Wikipedia tends to support its articles with media publications and if media integrity is the subject, media tend to be biased. To get the truth you need to reach for the actual sources, and that constitutes "Original Research" which is not an accepted Wikipedia source.

You're missing the point. The view of SJWs is that whoever is in a position of privilege in society, doesn't deserve any protection from abuse from the 'oppressed' side. Say, "Blacks can't be racist", or "Men can't be raped".

It's not about claiming there's no inequity. It's about their approach to resolving the problem. Someone some posts earlier put it well: if there's some stairs leading to a building, SJWs don't build a ramp for the handicapped, they remove the stairs so that handicapped don't feel bad about healthy people being able to enter.