that missile sting publicity stunt

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Aug 13, 2003.

  1. macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #1
    seems even janes is a bit annoyed about it:
    link

    and from ABC:
    link

    anyone here sleeping better at night because of this?
     
  2. macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #2
    Re: that missile sting publicity stunt

    no. I'd feel a lot better if we put a lot more of our assets into finding Osama and the rest of al-Qaeda.
     
  3. macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #3
    Good lord. Something positive happens, and people cannot even give it credit. We know it is a big deal because terrorists have fired shoulder launched missiles at aircraft before.

    Secondly, I feel safer knowing that someone isn't selling missiles in the US, and third. The guy was trying to deal 50, thats right, 50 SA-18 surface to air missiles. Could you imagine if on one day, 50 planes went down at the same time.
     
  4. macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #4
    B2TM,

    don't get me wrong I don't want anybody who has access to those missiles and is willing to sell them out on the streets. But these folks aren't the masterminds behind any plot; they're only stupid, corrupt fools who would make a buck off anything.
     
  5. macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #5
    And if this wouldn't have been set up, 50 wouldn't have been sold, and 50 aircraft wouldn't have been shot down.

    So nothing bad happens either way. I don't see how this is positive. More like a non-event.
     
  6. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #6
    Just this evening I heard in a NewsHour discussion that that installation of electronic countermeasures on commercial aircraft would cost a couple of billions, which is why we haven't done it yet. Yes, folks -- at the price of couple weeks in Iraq, we could rest a lot easier.
     
  7. macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #7
    What gets me is that there are now reports that the missiles that this guy had were duds. There is now speculation that Russia had approached this guy at the same time, or before the FBI did, and they didn't turn it into a multi-national sting until they discovered that fact. (I heard that on BBC Radio News on NPR)

    It doesn't seem nearly as amazing when you have one country pushing a guy to try to sell some missiles, and another country faking buying them. It sort of looks like the guy was entrapped, duped, made a patsy, whatever.
     
  8. thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #8
    he totally was. and now the WH gets to trumpet it as a "victory against terrorism."

    the real victory this week was the spoiling of any BA hijackings. but the saudis were responsible for that:
    could it be that bush doesn't want to highlight the fact that al qaeda is in saudi arabia?

    http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/08/13/britain.ba/index.html
     
  9. macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #9
    If I were a lawyer, I think I might publicly announce that whatever airline had the misfortune to be the first in the US to have a plane shot down by a missle would promptly be sued for the amount necessary to equip the entire US fleet with anti-missle defenses, then ask Congress to mandate the airlines install said systems with the money. Force the airlines to take responsibility for themselves now, or risk being the one who pays for the entire US fleet! Just a thought.

    Oh, and as for the missle.. Good, one less scumy arms dealer running around. Unfortunately many governments also fill the role of arms dealers as well.
     
  10. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #10
    StratFor's morning bulletin said that the whole deal has been cooking for some eighteen months. The "perp" could have been arrested long ago. He's a penny-ante small time, unconnected to Al Quaida. One of the "fellow conspirators" was an Israeli; one an African (Nigeria?).

    Apparently, purely a PR thing, in the arena of "We need some good news, while scaring folks!"

    'Rat
     
  11. macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #11
    Here's a Newsweek article that talks about the sting being an aborted attempt to turn this guy and use him to get to al Qaeda. Apparently their cover was blown by the BBC who got wind of the whole thing and were ready to run with it.

    In part:

     
  12. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #12
    I've just never understood why any news organization would publicize some information which could lead to deaths, or mess up efforts to catch Bad Guys.

    I don't argue against "the public's right to know." However, it seems to me that there are some things I don't NEED to know right NOW.

    Seems to me the moral approach for the BBC would have been to say something like, "Okay, we'll be quiet for now. However, you must keep our contact-man abreast of events." Some such deal, anyway.

    'Rat
     
  13. thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #13
    it does blow if the BBC spoiled what could have been a fruitful infiltration. however, i doubt the BBC knew enough of the big picture to make an informed moral judgement.
     
  14. macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #14
    The article did say that the story was leaked to the BBC by someone in the law enforcement community. Whoever that was really should have known better than to think they should pass that tidbit along to a reporter as well as the reporter showing some restraint. The BBC blames ABC for running an internal memo that caused them to run with their story so as not to get "scooped" by a rival.
     

Share This Page