Russia Or Turkey?

What would NATO do if Turkey was the one who made the mistake? I have to ask that because right now the evidence is showing that this was what happened when a Russian fight jet was drown by an air-to-air missile fired by a Turkish F-16.

Turkey claimed that the Russian Sukhoi flew over Turkish territory but note the Turk's very careful statement. They say the Russian jet "flew over" Turkish territory, not that the jet was over Turkey when it was shot down. Russian President Vladimir Putin insists that the aircraft was not in Turkish airspace and was actually shot down over Syrian territory.

The problem for NATO is that he is right!

The Russian jet was 1 km in Syria when it was shot down and it's crash site was 4 km from the border. In fact, according to Ankara's own radar map, the Russian Sukhoi could at best be described as "crossing" over Turkish territory. Analysts has already weighted in saying the Russian jet flew over a small piece of Turkey that projects into Syria and this small piece of real estate would have taken the Russian jet only moments to fly over. Some even went as far as to say it would have taken less then 5 mins for the Russian jet to exit Turkish airspace after entering it.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is not known to make empty threats and he had all but promise consequences for this "stab in the back" committed by "accomplices of terrorists". So I have to ask what does NATO do now because when it comes to fighting ISIS, the Russian have a much bigger role to play than Turkey? The Turks may be in NATO but they are far more interested in ousting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad than destroying ISIS. Last I checked, the recent Paris attacks were conducted not by Assad but by ISIS.

So NATO need to decide what is more important; getting rid of Assad or ISIS, because the downing of the Russian jet has crystallized the question for them. They need to pick a side between these 2 and tell both Turkey and Russia their position. Preferably, they will do it soon before Moscow decide on what form of retaliation to take against Turkey.

If NATO wait till then, it may be too late for everyone and the only winner in that scenario will be ISIS.

Taliban Tech

14 years after they were ousted by Western forces, the Taliban is back. Of course, they never really went away as the Taliban controls large areas of Afghanistan even when NATO troops were in Afghanistan. Now that NATO is gone, the Taliban wasted no time taking the northern Afghan city of Kunduz.

Afghan government forces have launched a counter-attack on the city and heavy fighting is continuing in the city but you know what really got my attention? How much the Taliban has changed! 

I mean the Taliban fighters are now taking selfies, some just after breaking out of jail! According to reports, the Taliban attacked Kunduz at night, taking the Afghan government forces by surprise. The Taliban fighters quickly overwhelmed several of the police checkpoints defending the perimeter of the town, captured key buildings, and freed about 500 prisoners from the city's jail.

The freed prisoners then promptly took selfies with the Taliban fighters who freed them and the pictures are now flooding Afghan social media. The capture of Kunduz may represent the Taliban's biggest victory since 2001 but it could be fleeting if they can’t hold on to the city. However, the pictures on social media?

That's different. Those selfies on the streets of Kunduz are some of the most striking and revealing moments of the assault on the city. They are there forever. The Taliban is back, and they are different from the Taliban we all remember. 

The French Hypocrisy

After terrorists attack the offices of Charlie Hebdo, the magazine put a picture of the Prophet on the cover of its first issue after the attack. I posted that the magazine was being stupid and provocative. The French says they were defending freedom of speech.

Well, it seems the French definition of “freedom of speech” is kind of limited because since the attack, French police have arrested more than 70 people for allegedly "defending or glorifying terrorism". One of the people arrested was a French comedian named Dieudonne M'bala M'bala. He was charged over a Facebook post saying "I feel like Charlie Coulibaly", play on the names of magazine Charlie Hebdo and Amedy Coulibaly, the attacker who killed four hostages at the supermarket. 

That's it. He didn't call for people to attack Charlie Hebdo again or say the attackers were doing a good thing. He just did a play on their names. He was arrested for that.

Let see here; a magazine (that sells millions of copies) showing a picture of the Prophet is okay even though almost all Muslims considered it an insult to their religion, but a Facebook post against the magazine can get you jail time. Uh…how do you spell hypocrisy in French? 

Wrong Stupid Move By Charlie Hebdo

A week after a deadly attack that killed 12 people, French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has now published a new edition with a cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad on its cover.

The cartoon shows the Prophet weeping while holding a sign saying "Je suis Charlie" ("I am Charlie") and has already generated threats from militant Islamist websites and criticism from the Islamic world. It is believed that earlier cartoons of the Prophet prompted the attack on the office of the magazine.

So the question has to be asked, “Why the hell are these guys doing it again? A cartoon like this is provoking Muslims as no depiction of the Prophet is allowed.”

Well, the answer to that question is simple. Charlie Hebdo pride itself on being provocative. The cartoons, especially the past cartoons, are insulting because they were meant to be so. Now before you argued against that, remind yourself that staff from Charlie Hebdo agreed with my assessment. In the editorial of the latest issue, the magazine say they want no more insinuations that they brought trouble on itself by provoking Muslims. 

Note the fact that they do not deny they are provoking Muslims; only that they are asking for the trouble that comes with the provocation.

Charlie Hebdo don’t argue that the cartoons were meant to be mocking Muslim and Arab culture; they are arguing that they are allowed to do this because 1) they can do so under free speech and 2) the magazine is equally insulting to other cultures and religions like the Jews and Christianity.

Now I'm sorry 12 people died over something like cartoons but is insulting someone okay as long as you are equally insulting to everyone? Some people may disagree with my views but I say “NO”. Just because you are equally insulting to other people does not mean I will accept it if you insults me. 

So I say putting the Prophet Muhammad on its cover now is a pretty stupid move on the part of Charlie Hebdo. Killing 12 people over cartoons may be crazy but so is putting the Prophet Muhammad on a magazine cover when you know what had happened the last time you did it.

Knowing what had happened the last time they did this, the magazine is now intentionally doing it again. Tell me that's not provocation. A lot of people will disagree but to me, the move by Charlie Hebdo is not just wrong, it is also just plain stupid. 

Nothing New

So the United States of America tortured people. In other news, the sky is blue and water is wet. That’s my view when the US Senate Intelligence Committee released a report detailing "brutal" interrogations of al-Qaeda suspects by members of the CIA.

So the CIA tortured people. How is that news? That’s why they were kept in Guantanamo Bay right? That’s what the “extraordinary rendition of terror suspects” is all about right? They were dropped off in countries like Thailand, Syria and Egypt so that they could be tortured. That’s hardly news. People had been saying all that for years.

Yes, there is some new stuff in the report like how at least one person died while under torture and how the “program” was pretty unsuccessful in getting good information but generally, there’s nothing new about the reports. Yet when you go on BBC, CNN or FOX News, all the stations goes on and on about how damming, brutal and explosive the report is.

I don’t get it. I’m no news reporter and I heard most of the stuff that is in the report. Anyone who thinks what’s in the report is new had not been paying attention. 

Nothing Learned

U.S Defense Secretary, Chuck Hagel, has resigned as reports surfaced about differences between him and U.S President Barack Obama. In short, Mr Hagel and President Obama have different opinions about whether to commit more American troops to fight ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

Currently, it’s too early to tell which way President Obama will lean but the fact that it’s still a question is shocking for me. After a decade of non-stop war in Iraq and Afghanistan, I’m amazed the United States of America still want to fight. Has nothing been learned in America?

Before you went into Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States of America was the hyper-power of the world. Since then, the U.S went into the Great Recession, had a housing bubble burst, and had their international reputation went into the toilet.

Now you are thinking of putting more troops into Iraq, and even intend to add Syria into that list? Truly, has nothing been learned in America? 

It Was A Mistake

It’s widely accepted that former American President George W. Bush was the worst U.S President America had in living memory, mostly due to the costly Iraqi War. Personally, I always thought that the man was well-meaning but incapable of the job.

One of the things he also appear incapable of is admitting a mistake. To this day, George W. Bush do not believe invading Iraq! In a recent interview, George W. Bush insists sending troops into Iraq was “the right decision” and he only regret the rise of the Islamic State (ISIS) in parts of Iraq.

Well guess what? The world only has the problems on ISIS because of the decision to send troops into Iraq! So if you "regret" the rise of ISIS, shouldn't "regret" the decision to send troops into Iraq. That’s not even counting the fact that you ordered troops into Iraq on pretense. Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction and did not have a nuclear program.

Not if you are George W. Bush. Such details don’t seem to register with him and 6 years after leaving the White House, he is still incapable of seeing what the world already knows. 

Going into Iraq opened a can of worms that the world is grappling with to this day. Going into Iraq was a mistake! 

History Repeat Itself?

As the U.S launched new air strikes against Islamic State (IS) militants, this time in Syria, U.S President Barack Obama hailed the support of Arab nations in the air strikes and proudly said that more than 50 nations had agreed to fight IS.

Honestly, I think President Obama need to can it on the rhetoric of having a coalition to fight IS. The fight is in the Middle East; he is bombing Syria without a United Nations mandate; doing it without the permission of the Syrian government; and doing it without the blessings of China and Russia. Does this remind anyone of anything? 

If your answer is Iraq and George Bush, then you are not alone. This is eerily similar to what happened before the Iraq War and we all know how that war turned out for the Americans.

Lotfi Ariffin Does Not Fight For IS!

It’s no surprise that there are some people from Southeast Asia currently fighting in Syria and Iraq on behalf of the Islamic State (IS). IS has recruited people from all over the world, so this cannot come as any surprise. 

So when Yahoo news announced how the death of a Malaysian Islamist in Syria fighting on behalf of IS has sparked an outpouring of eulogies on social media, many people were rightfully concerned. However there’s just one problem.

Lotfi Ariffin, the Malaysian in question, does not fight for IS! 

He died fighting the Syrian government of Bashar Al-Assad on behalf of an Islamic group call Ajnad al-Sham, a rebel group that operates near the Syrian capital of Damascus which is not affiliated to IS or the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front. Having said that, according to his regular posts on social media, Mr. Lotfi Ariffin was a proud Islamist who believed he was answering a call for jihad in Syria.

That is short is the headache facing Western and Arabic states looking to take on IS in Syria and Iraq. Do they just attack IS or should they also attack other Islamic militant groups like Nusra Front and Ajnad al-Sham? How do they differentiate between the groups and if they attack all of them, would that make/force the groups to band together?

For people who are wondering why it is taking so long for the U.S and the Western countries to attack IS, this is just one of the big problems they are facing with no clear answer. 

Libyan Civil War 2.0?

Call them whatever you want, The Islamic State, ISIS, ISIL, the fact remains; ISIS has grown rapidly in strength and influence in both Iraq and Syria in recent times. So much so that the U.S. military has now become the airforce of the Iraqi and Kurdish forces in their fight against ISIS.

If you have a feeling of déjà vu, it’s because we’ve been through this before. In 2011, the U.S, British and French became the airforce of Libyan rebels in the Libyan Civil War. Muammar Gaddafi was deposed and killed in that war and many Western news agencies are already saying that Iraq will be “liberated” the same way Libya was “liberated” in October 2011.

Some people got short term memory.

I say this because the last time I checked, the Libyan Civil War ended up terribly. Since the loss of Gaddafi, Libyan rebels are in the midst of a civil war among themselves; there have been a massive proliferation of weaponry in the region; and the even the U.S. embassy in Benghazi was stormed!

No one came out of the Libyan Civil War smelling like roses, and the fight against ISIS is supposed to be Libyan Civil War 2.0? For the sake of the U.S., I hope not. Libya didn’t turn out well for anyone, and the last thing the world need is another Libyan mess!

Why They Are Still Fighting

As Israel and Palestinian faction Hamas agreed to a new three-day ceasefire, efforts are continuing in Cairo for a longer-term deal. Efforts that are hampered by Israel’s latest demand that they will not negotiate while under fire from Hamas.

That in short is the main reason why the two sides had been unable to come to an agreement thus far. Hamas has been doing far better against the Israelis than anyone thought they would and the Israeli government is trying to find ways and means to avoid giving Hamas a victory.

Since Israel launched "Operation Protective Edge" on 8 July, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has killed more than 1,900 Palestinians, but most of them have been civilians. In contrast, sixty-seven people have died on the Israeli side, but only 3 of whom were civilians.

If you just look at the numbers, you can clearly see that the IDF is winning the battle. However if you take into account that Hamas is heavily outmanned, outspent and outgunned by the Israelis, it’s kind of surprising they have done as well as they had. Not only that, with their tunnels, Hamas had proved that they have the capabilities to strike at Israeli military targets directly.

That is why the Arab world who initially treated the conflict with a collective shrug is now suddenly trying to find a solution for a ceasefire. Hamas’ capabilities in the field are embarrassing them and the longer it goes, the worse it is for them. And what if Hamas?

Hamas would benefit the most from a ceasefire. They have demonstrated their military capabilities to the world and their political aim of freely the Israeli siege have the full backing of the Palestinian people. The crazy thing about the whole affair is that the good field result of Hamas is probably what’s stopping them from getting what they want; the lifting of the Israeli siege.

That is why the fighting hasn’t stopped and negotiations haven’t gotten anywhere. All sides are so focused on not losing that Palestinian lives lost in the fighting are a secondary concern.

Israel's Own Goal

Ever since war started between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, one thing has been obvious; Hamas and the Palestinians has been winning the media war. Even the United States, Israel's one constant ally in the world, has now been showing more and more frustration with the Jewish state.

The reason has been simple. Over 1000 Palestinians has been killed in the conflict and most of them has been civilians. Also Israel has been bombing various infrastructures in the Gaza Strip which has been not involved in the fighting. Schools, hospitals and Gaza's sole power station has been knocked out by Israeli bombs and missiles. Of course, Israel is denying everything, often claiming that Hamas has been firing rockets from these positions.

Then came this live CNN report.

CNN correspondent, Karl Penhaul, was delivering a live report from the Gaza Strip when a building just 200m behind him got bombed by a F-16 fighter jet! Smoke was seen billowing from the sixth floor of the residential building soon after and the whole thing was caught live.

Yes, that includes the fact that no one from Hamas was firing from the building! Man, talk about an own goal. Penhaul quickly reported that the CNN crew has been reporting from the position for a few days already and not once had anyone seen any rockets coming from the building.

All live! Well, so much for the idea that Israel is not targeting civilians in the Gaza Strip. 

Stop Flying Over Ukraine

As the tragedy of MH17 unfolds, the world is now treated to accusations on both sides of the Ukrainian conflict. Both sides in Ukraine's civil war are accusing each other of shooting down the plane with a missile.

One thing is clear however; airlines are STILL flying over Ukraine.

Honestly, when I first heard the plane went down I wondered why the hell was the plane even flying in the area. Everyone knows the Ukraine is in the midst of a civil war so why was a plane carrying civilian passengers in the middle of a hot warzone.

Later I read that the route MH17 was on was a common one and that many airlines fly over the area. This is because the route is the shortest route from Europe to Southeast Asia and everyone uses it to save cost. The Sydney Morning Herald even reported that immediately after MH17's crash, four other airliners followed the exact same route and none of them re-route. These four were from Singapore Airlines, Emirates, Kazakhstan Airlines and Etihad.

I have to ask; Why the hell not? If (unconfirmed) reports are to be believed, MH17 was shot down by a missile so why aren’t airlines diverting their planes? Even right now, heavy fighting is reported to be on-going between the Ukrainian army and the rebels. Reporters at the MH17 crash site even have reported to have heard mortar fire and explosions in the area. Yet even with so such danger and unanswered questions about the crash, airlines are still using the same route MH17 was on!

Yes, the shoot down of MH17 was almost certainly an accident but if it can happen accidently once, it can happen twice. No matter the cost, airlines should avoid the area till the fighting die down. Let’s not risk another MH17. 

Prisoner Exchange Is Normal

It should have been an easy case where everyone can rally around. U.S Sgt Bowe Bergdahl, 28, was released by the Taliban on Saturday in exchange for five senior Afghan detainees held in Guantanamo Bay.

This should have been a simple case of 2 sides in a war who decided it’s time to exchange prisoners. It happens all the time throughout history in almost every war ever fought by mankind. It’s normal.

Except it seems in America! U.S President Barack Obama is being criticized for exchanging prisoners by his Republican opponents. They are claiming the president is “soft on terrorism” for making a deal to release 5 prisoners for one.

I don’t get it.

First off; it’s not terrorism because the Taliban is fighting American forces who invaded Afghanistan in 2001. Yes, they have their reasons but an invasion is an invasion. Secondly, the U.S forces are pulling out. Thirdly, the alternative to prisoner exchange is to leave Sgt Bergdahl behind in Afghanistan.

So I cannot understand how President Obama can be criticized for this deal. It is grossly unfair to him, to Sgt Bergdahl, and to all U.S servicemen currently serving their country throughout the world. President Obama’s opponents are openly saying it is okay to leave a solider behind just to score political points.

They should be taken to task for this. Prisoners of war should NOT be a topic to score political points on. 

2 Coups; Same Results?

Anyone who read my blog knows that I think the current military coup in Thailand is an exercise in futility. Army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha may be in power now but his rule will probably end in tears because in any general elections which is even remotely fair, the red shirts will crush the yellow shirts at the polls.

As I wrote last week, the only way for the yellow shirts to win is to NOT have free and fair elections. Even then, there’s no guarantee things will go smoothly for him. He can just ask former military chief Abdul Fattah al-Sisi of Egypt.

Over a year after ousting Egyptian President, Mohammed Morsi, and the Muslim Brotherhood from power in a military coup, al-Sisi is now trying to gain some respectability by winning an election. It is an election that no one doubt he will be win because he is the only viable candidate.

It is also an election the Muslim Brotherhood is boycotting.

The call for a boycott is working as voter turnout in the election is so low al-Sisi and the military government has no choice but to extend voting into a third day. The Egyptian election is supposed to last only 2 days but with voter turnout rumored to be at 15% (at most), al-Sisi is desperate. If only 15% voted for him, this means 85% of the Egyptian people are against him because he is the only candidate! So voting is extended. Yes, that's how "fair" the Egyptian election is. 

So Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha and the Thai military better not be too comfortable in their position right now. It is always calm before the storm.

Expected Coup To Save "Face" Of The Thai Royal Family

Well, that didn't take long. Just 2 days after declaring martial law, Thailand's army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha seized control of the government in yet another coup.

Now this doesn't come as a surprise to anyone as the Thai military has been quietly but openly supporting the anti-government activists backed by the royalist establishment. Anti-government protesters have been struggling to oust the government for six months but they have been losing steam and something has to be done to save the face of the royal establishment. It was so obvious that acting Prime Minister Niwatthamrong Boonsongphaisan refused to attend a meeting with the anti-government forces brokered by the military and instead sending 4 of his ministers to the meeting. All 4 ministers has been detained by the military.

Now the Thai military may insist it was not seizing power, instead trying to prevent violence and restore stability in the deeply divided country, however good luck finding anyone who believe that crap. The sad thing about the whole episode? The anti-government, royal-backed yellow shirt have no chance in any free and fair election in Thailand! There are far more pro-government red shirts than there are yellow shirts. It's not even close. Even the yellow shirts admit that.

So the only way for the yellow shirts to win is to NOT have free and fair elections. It didn't escape notice that the general did not say anything about when new elections will be held.

The last military coup in 2006 threw the popularity of the Thai military into the toilet; this one is going to flush it down into an abyss. Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha better postpone his retirement plans; he's going to be in the hot seat for quite awhile.

The Eventual Winner?

"This is a turning point in the crisis, both militarily in terms of the army's achievements in the war against terror, and socially in terms of national reconciliation processes and growing awareness of the truth behind the [attacks] targeting the country."

These words were uttered by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad who believed that after 3 years, the Syrian civil war is now at a turning point. He is right and it is turning in his favor!

This is an analysis most observers, including Western diplomats who wish to topple al-Assad, agrees with. The reason is simple. The West insistence that moderate Syrian rebels like the Frees Syrian Army (FSA) turn their backs on the extreme rebel group, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), have split the Syrian rebels and al-Assad has waste no time in taking advantage of the situation.

Not only that, the Syrian government is steadily taking territory from FSA, using the age-old tactics of trying to wipe out the weaker force first before going after the stronger ISIS. After suffering attacks from their follow rebels, ISIS has been consolidating their presence in eastern Syria, basically abandoning the rest of Syria to the Syrian government and FSA. A straight fight the Syrian government is winning handily.

So after scoring a succession of military victories, President Assad will be forgiven for gloating about the future. The chances of him ultimately winning the Syrian civil war is a very possible possibility. 

Man, What A Defection!

Without a shot being fired, Russia has now taken over the Ukrainian region of Crimea. Facing that, the new Ukrainian government did what all governments did. They mobilized their army, called up reservists, and appoint a new Chief of Navy, Denys Berezovsky.

Who promptly defect to Crimea...aka Russia!

Wow! If there's any doubts Ukraine is a country divided, this really put that to the grave. The navy chief defects? Seriously? The new Ukrainian government appoint the man on Friday and he pledging allegiance to pro-Russian Crimea on Sunday? Wow!

If the West is going to back this Ukrainian government, then they better sent some serious help to them quickly. Thus their performance is not convincing (to say the least).

Putin Strikes Back

Say this about Valdmir Putin; he don't do things in half measures. 

Just days after riots and protests in Kiev ousted the democratically elected pro-Russian Ukraine president, Viktor Yanukovych, dozens of armed men in military uniforms seized government buildings and the airport in the capital of Ukraine's strategic Crimea region. No one seen to know who these men are but as they had raised the Russian flag over the government buildings they sized, it doesn't take much to guess. 

It feels as though after getting struck going nothing due to the Sochi Winter Olympics, Russian President Putin is making up for lost time. In scrambling Russian fighter jets, granting asylum to Viktor Yanukovych and tacitly backing the takeover by local Russians of Crimean government buildings, he has all but thrown down the gauntlet to the new government in Kiev. Honestly I think he shouldn't have bothered because sooner or later Ukraine will have to go back to the Russian's orbit. 

The simple fact is this; Yanukovych did the only thing he could when he took the deal with Russia.

The economic deal offered by the West required him to undertake economic reforms in Ukraine that would have put Ukraine in recession for years. Russia offered him a deal that did not require political suicide. Would the West now offer better terms to the new fledgling administration of Ukraine?

Maybe but I doubt how much better it could be.

I doubt it because how are the Americans and the European Union (EU) going to come to the financial rescue of Ukraine when they can barely support the economies like Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain? Yes, I know the IMF (International Monetary Fund) already said it was "ready to respond" to Ukraine's bid for financial assistance and the EU has publicly said it was considering emergency loans for the country but where is the money going to come from? Ukraine will need US$35 billion over the next two years just to avoid default. Can you imagine US President Barack Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel going to their people saying that they are going to give US$35 billion to Ukraine? I can't. And this US$35 billion amount is if the Russian don't do anything else! Russia can put a choke hold on the Ukrainian economy anytime they want to because Ukraine depends heavily on Russia's gas and primary resources.

However in a way I also do understand why President Putin scrambled jets and ok the takeover of the government buildings because...what could the West do? If Russia really go after the military option in Crimea, they would have a large segment of the population (some reports says up to 80%) behind them and with a large military facility anchored in Sebastopol, the Russian would have immediate support from local forces. I sincerely doubt NATO will take any military action to support the so-called new government (because most of them are part of the government that lost the last Ukrainian elections to Yanukovych) in Kiev in such a conflict.

President Putin's moves on Ukraine may seen rash and heavy-handed and it is also one that's carefully thought out. Unfortunately for the new fledgling administration of Ukraine, it is also one that's relatively safe.

The Name Game

Currently in Pakistan, Afghanistan, West Bank and other conflict zones, the armed drone is the weapon of choice for US, the UK and Israel. They are popular because the drones can be used remotely without risking human lives. So popular are the drones that armies from France to China now have programs to build their own drones.

With their popularity of course comes the criticism of them being soulless assassination tools. So much so that drone manufacturers are now not using the word "drone". Instead they are calling the drones “Unmanned Aerial System” or “Remotely Piloted Aircraft”.

What a total waste of time!

Don’t these manufacturers know that once a name is given to something, it can’t be changed? Not only that, the people of the world has common sense. We will call the drones what they are, regardless of the PR! Take the example of all those “private contractors” the US and the UK employed in the invasion of Iraq. Everyone in the world called those contractors “mercenaries” and try as the Americans might, no one in their right mind called it the “liberation” of Iraq.

I don’t care how determined these manufacturers are in their efforts to change the name of drones. Drones are well…drones!