U.S. Government Sting Operation Criticized as Setup - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

HarmlessRabbit · 08-13-2003, 11:39 PM

spotted on drudge, abc news is claiming that the whole "missile dealer" operation was a sting from the start, and the guy arrested was just a desperate man with a lot of debt. The fake weapon for the sting was provided by russia, and the accused had never done any arms dealing before.

If true, it certainly seems to weaken the government's justification for trotting this out as a sign of continued terrorist threats.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/W...813_sting.html

Quote:

— Administration officials are leaving out key facts and exaggerating the significance of the alleged plot to smuggle a shoulder-launched missile into the United States, law enforcement officials told ABCNEWS. They say there's a lot less than meets the eye.

The accused ringleader, British national Hemant Lakhani, appeared today in federal court in Newark, N.J., and was ordered held without bond on charges of attempting to provide material support and material resources to terrorists and acting as an arms broker without a license.

Outside the courtroom, U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie called Lakhani an ally of terrorists who want to kill Americans.

"He, on many occasions, in recorded conversations, referred to Americans as 'bastards' [and] Osama bin Laden as a hero," said Christie.

But what he did not say was just how much of the alleged missile plot was a government setup from start to finish.

For example, Lakhani had no contacts in Russia to buy the missiles before the sting and had no known criminal record for arms dealing, officials told ABCNEWS.

"Here we have a sting operation on some kind of small operator … who's bought one weapon when actually, on the gray and black market, hundreds of such weapons charge hands," said military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer.

Court documents show much of the case is based on the government's key cooperating witness, an informant seeking lenient treatment on federal drug charges, officials told ABCNEWS. He was the first person who led the government to Lakhani.

‘He Might Say Anything’

The missile shipped into the New York area last month was not a real missile — just a mockup — also arranged entirely by the government. The government also arranged the meetings at a New Jersey hotel and elsewhere, where Lakhani allegedly told undercover agents posing as al Qaeda terrorists about his support of bin Laden.

"One would have to ask yourself, would this have occurred at all without the government?" said Gerald Lefcourt, a criminal defense attorney.

In London today, Lakhani's neighbors described him as a quiet man who worked in the garment industry and had faced serious financial problems.

"I would have hoped the United States is thwarting real terrorism and not something manufactured because here all they're doing is stopping something they created," said Lefcourt.

Government officials said the case will show that Lakhani went along with the scheme willingly and was not entrapped. But the question remains whether any of this would have happened if the government had not set it up.

Dragonlich · 08-14-2003, 12:08 AM

It *was* a setup, and it *was* a sting operation. That is legal in the US, but it would not be in, say, the Netherlands. If a US court convicts this guy, then that is their right; tough luck for the arms dealer...

However, I doubt this was "just a desperate man". He knowingly supplied (what he believed was) an AA missile to (what he thought were) terrorists willing to blow up an airplane full of innocent people. And yes, he (thought he) knew they would be doing that with his missile. Now, no matter how "desperate" *I* am, I'm still aware of the difference between right and wrong, and would never (ever) do what he did. I'm sure the majority of humans would agree with me on this.

Note: sting operations and setups are also used to catch would-be child rapists. FBI agents pose as young kids, people chat with them, and when they finally meet, they get arrested. This was in fact used to catch a Dutch citizen when he went to the US to meet the "kid" he met online. Again, in the Netherlands, this would be illegal, and it has caused quite a stir here. However, in the US it is legal, and the guy should have known better. Would the use of a sting in this "child-rape" case be any better/worse than the use of a sting in the case of this arms dealer?

As for the US government exploiting this as a sign of continued terrorist threats, I really don't know what to think.

On the one hand, it doesn't really prove that there *are* terrorists who would blow up a plane in the US. It merely shows that the FBI was able to get someone to sell them a missile.

On the other hand, terrorists (and rebel groups all over the world) have tried to blow up civilian planes before, and have sometimes succeeded. There is no reason to believe they would *not* try it in the US. In fact, it is reasonable to assume they *would* try it if they could. The fact that this guy was willing and "able" to supply the weapon would indicate there are other (more professional) people willing and able to do that.

HarmlessRabbit · 08-14-2003, 12:44 AM

Quote:

On the one hand, it doesn't really prove that there *are* terrorists who would blow up a plane in the US. It merely shows that the FBI was able to get someone to sell them a missile.

Right, that's my point. If this is true (and there certainly isn't convincing proof yet) then the FBI has just shown that desparate people will do anything, not that they have captured a dangerous arms dealer. The way it was being played out on the news was that the government has captured a dangerous, experienced arms dealer bent on destroying the USA.

A radio story on NPR said that there is a global problem with the available of cheap Russian missiles and also, more dangerously, USA Stinger missiles. Ironically, the supplies of Stinger missiles to terrorists are coming from Afghanistan, because we gave them Stingers back when Afghanistan was our friend.

Markaz · 08-14-2003, 12:46 AM

Ok, thats a fucking retarded thing. YES IT WAS A STING. The gov hosted a sting to STOP people from actually GETTING REAL ones. Matt Drudge is full of shit, the guy is one sided and posts stuff without facts. He is trying to dig up ALL he can on Arnold right now..on his last show when he was bashind arnold a reported friend of his called and said a few bad things about the candidate Matt wanted, and guess what that tard said? "Ohh you're too harsh on her." bleeh

Would this have happened without the gov setting up the sting? Maybe, maybe not. But does it really matter? The bastard was trying to buy a fucking RPG! When I'm president I'm gana crack down on illegals, and make the death penalty go faster...asshats like these need to die.

HarmlessRabbit · 08-14-2003, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Would this have happened without the gov setting up the sting? Maybe, maybe not. But does it really matter? The bastard was trying to buy a fucking RPG!

I think you're missing the point of the abcnews story. The government has made this out to be a major bust of some sort of arms dealing ring. If this story is true, all they did was convince some idiot who needed money to buy a fake missile.

If you read this story, for example:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...issile_plot_27

the guy is said to be "a significant international arms dealer." It's quite a different story than the abcnews story.

Dragonlich · 08-14-2003, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
Right, that's my point. If this is true (and there certainly isn't convincing proof yet) then the FBI has just shown that desparate people will do anything, not that they have captured a dangerous arms dealer. The way it was being played out on the news was that the government has captured a dangerous, experienced arms dealer bent on destroying the USA.

True, the reporting is excessive. However, as I already stated, this isn't just "desperate people". This was a guy who thought he was selling an anti-aircraft missile to terrorists, who told him they were going to use it to blow up an airplane full of innocent people. That is wrong, no matter how desperate you are.

IF this had not been a setup, had the buyers actually been terrorists, and had they actually used the missile, then this guy would have been partly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people. Apparently, he cared more about his money than about those potential victims. In short: he's desperate *and* lacks empathy.

One question though: might this sting and the accompanying media campaign have been pre-planned to cause would-be arms dealers to think twice about their actions? After all, if *I* were an evil arms dealer, I'd be starting to worry whether those "terrorists" I am dealing with aren't really FBI agents...

homerhop · 08-14-2003, 05:07 AM

I have watched cnn and abc a few times on cable and I found that the news presenters try to make every thing as exciting as possilbe..as example if a cat crossed a road backways they would have fottage of it from every angle and describe it as world breaking.

As for the guy with the sting, he was wrong and dumb esp with the attitude on that kind of thing state side at the moment.

onetime2 · 08-14-2003, 05:51 AM

It proved that there are people out there that are willing to broker deals with terrorists regardless of what it means to the lives of hundreds if not thousands of innocent people.

And for those that don't think there are terrorists out there who would be willing to take down a plane with an AA missile, what the hell are you thinking? They'll load a truck up with explosives and drive it to a neighborhood or under an office tower but they won't pull a freaking trigger?

Seems a lot of the critics here think this was just some innocent guy walking down the street when the government decided to target him. I think that kind of says a lot about your perception of our government.

HarmlessRabbit · 08-14-2003, 07:47 AM

Quote:

One question though: might this sting and the accompanying media campaign have been pre-planned to cause would-be arms dealers to think twice about their actions?

Sure, I can buy that. Much like the ISONEWS crackdown. The NPR radio story I heard said there were hundreds of USA and Russian missiles being sold on the black market every year, so I suppose if the ABC story is true you could argue that it still sends a signal to small time criminals that they should stick to petty theft and not deal in weapons.

Quote:

Seems a lot of the critics here think this was just some innocent guy walking down the street when the government decided to target him. I think that kind of says a lot about your perception of our government.

I haven't seen anyone say that yet. I certainly didn't. The point is that the "official" story is that the guy was a "significant international arms dealer" and that the abcnews story says that he was just an unemployed, heavily in debt textile worker. One of these two stories is wrong. We'll have to wait and see if any other reputable news organizations pick up the story to find out. But, ABC news is not, say, the drudge report, and the fact that they are reporting this gives it at least some credibility in my book.

onetime2 · 08-14-2003, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
If this story is true, all they did was convince some idiot who needed money to buy a fake missile.

Perhaps I misread the above statement. But it SEEMS to imply that he would not have been doing this if it weren't for the government. The implication seems to be that he's just an average joe that needs money. In fact, most people would never even consider selling weapons to take care of their financial woes let alone selling them to terrorists with plans to kill hundreds of innocent people.

Of course there will be multiple versions of the story depending on the source. The fact remains that there were several people willing to negotiate a deal to supply weapons to terrorists.

HarmlessRabbit · 08-14-2003, 08:09 AM

Quote:

But it SEEMS to imply that he would not have been doing this if it weren't for the government.

Yes, that is exactly what the abc news story is implying, that the man was not an arms dealer, he was a desparate guy who needed cash.

Quote:

The fact remains that there were several people willing to negotiate a deal to supply weapons to terrorists.

Yes, but the difference here is that, if the ABC news story is correct, the man arrested had no ability to actually get the arms himself and no history in dealing arms. He was just a middleman between russians posing as the supplier and brits posing as the buyers. That's quite a different story than the news stories that are saying he was a dangerous international arms dealer. You can always find stupid people that will commit crimes for money.

Don't get me wrong, the guy is an idiot, he committed a crime, and he deserves jail. And ABC is the only one reporting the different story so far. So, as I said, we'll have to wait and see what the truth is.

Charlatan · 08-14-2003, 09:45 AM

I agree with HarmlessRabbit on this one... clearly the guy they caught is an idiot and as others have pointed out regardless of the entrapment he was knowingly selling arms to people who claimed to be willing to use them to blow up planes...

That isn't the issue.

The issue is the way it is being presented in the press. To hear it and read it you would think that some big evil arms dealer was caught as he was trying to sell arms to terrorists. When actually there was no arms dealer (technically yes he was dealing arms but you know what I mean) and there were no terriorists (I'm not saying there aren't terrorists just that in this case there aren't any).

All we have is a desperate idiot willing to sell weapons to make money. Sad. Upsetting. But not worth alarming the nation.

j8ear · 08-14-2003, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charlatan
All we have is a desperate idiot willing to sell weapons to make money. Sad. Upsetting. But not worth alarming the nation.

Probably not worth bragging about either.

They sure aren't very good with their PR are they.

As for desperate idiot.... While this peice of trash qualifies, I do not think that 'all we have.' He is also a terrorist sympathasizing, international illegal arms dealing wanna-be. You don't just 'get into this line of work.' You've got to know some bad people, and definately done some sick shit.

I have always had a problem with the death penalty for 'conspiracy' crimes...i.e. crimes not actually committed. What do we do with this guy though?

-bear

HarmlessRabbit · 08-14-2003, 10:01 AM

What do we do with this guy though?

They say he's only up for about 15 years, unless a terrorism charge sticks. Sounds about right if the ABC story is right.

onetime2 · 08-14-2003, 10:33 AM

Sorry, but it's not that big of a stretch for this guy to be dealing with someone that would use the weapons. After all this all happened in Newark, right next door to Jersey City where the planning for both the first WTC bombing and the acts on 9/11 occurred.

If the government didn't make an announcement about this happening and the press got a hold of it they would be shouted down as trying to cover it up.

Personally, I am glad to hear that there are aggressive investigations going on to root out people that are willing to facilitate arms deals with terrorists. This is especially true since I will be travelling out of Newark in about 10 days.

Furthermore, I don't care whether this is the guy's first offense or not. Had he been successful and the terrorists he sold to killed members of your family would it make a difference that he was just trying to get himself out of debt and had never done this kind of thing before?

HarmlessRabbit · 08-14-2003, 12:46 PM

onetime2

I see a big difference between arresting an actual arms dealer and arresting a person willing to sell arms for a profit, but who doesn't actually have the connections or the arms to do so. It's like the difference between arresting someone willing to commit fraud, and arresting someone who defrauded people out of millions.

But rather than ping-pong the same retorts back and forth, I guess the best approach is to wait and see if the ABC story is picked up by anyone else.

j8ear · 08-14-2003, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
onetime2I see a big difference between arresting an actual arms dealer and arresting a person willing to sell arms for a profit, but who doesn't actually have the connections or the arms to do so.

I don't see it that way at all. It's really interesting the undying compassion you espouse for the perpetrator versus the unequiovocal disgust with the actions of the ~man~.

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit But rather than ping-pong the same retorts back and forth, I guess the best approach is to wait and see if the ABC story is picked up by anyone else.[/B]

Best approach for what? What will the "pickup rate" of ABC's story have to do with anything. Is a possible conspiracy theory soon to be posted under your dateline, with a title along the lines of "Right wing propaganda conspiracy surfaces for failing to protect American's from terrorists?"

HarmlessRabbit · 08-14-2003, 01:03 PM

It's really interesting the undying compassion you espouse for the perpetrator versus the unequiovocal disgust with the actions of the ~man~.

It's even more interesting the complete and utter fabrication of facts that you're capable of in your mind.

There are two possible stories here:

1. The US government captured a dangerous international arms dealer in a sting operation.

2. The US government captured a guy desperate for money who had no ability to actually deal in arms, and is now falsely parading him around as if they busted an international arms dealer.

ABC news, a respected source, has put forth story #2, story #1 is the generally accepted news story. Somebody is right, somebody is wrong. As journalists look at the facts and independent sources investigate, we'll get to the bottom of it.

In any event, this guy is a bad guy and deserves to go to jail, as I already said.

I guess examining the facts and trying to get to the truth when there are conflicting stories makes me a bleeding heart liberal?

j8ear · 08-14-2003, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
It's even more interesting the complete and utter fabrication of facts that you're capable of in your mind.

Is that so? Well argued that's for sure ~roll eyes~

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
There are two possible stories here:

1. The US government captured a dangerous international arms dealer in a sting operation.

2. The US government captured a guy desperate for money who had no ability to actually deal in arms, and is now falsely parading him around as if they busted an international arms dealer..

Only two? Really. My sources of news haven't presented it all that much like number one (some what...sure, but definately not like the war on terror is now over, or that any serious chink in the enemies armor has been inflicted. In fact I've even seen dems spin this that were not doing enough, because see how dangerous things still are???? )...and only your source has run with number two. I don't give a crap if it's ABC...well respected? Moderately, but any man with any sense should be able to realize that ANY of the main stream sources of news will spin any angle with the vaguest of evidence in order to appeal to readers/viewers. Looks like you've been hook.line.and.sinkered. I've seen several other theories presented right in this thread that sound more plausible then either of the ONLY two options you considered.

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
ABC news, a respected source, has put forth story #2, story #1 is the generally accepted news story. Somebody is right, somebody is wrong. As journalists look at the facts and independent sources investigate, we'll get to the bottom of it.

Nope, they'll all just spin and spin and spin..Some of my news sources even indicated that this guy wanted to take down Air Force One. Some FBI agent informs the media that the suspect informed the "buyers" that the missle could take down a 747. Some reporter interpreted that to mean HE WAS TRYING TO TAKE DOWN AIRFORCE ONE. Somebody wrong or right, huh...get to the bottom of it? What planet are you from?

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
In any event, this guy is a bad guy and deserves to go to jail, as I already said.

I don't recall reading this from your hand. Please don't find it for me. I'll take it at face value that this is how you feel.

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
I guess examining the facts and trying to get to the truth when there are conflicting stories makes me a bleeding heart liberal?

If that's what you call it..what ever gets you through the day hotshot.

HarmlessRabbit · 08-14-2003, 01:41 PM

j8ear

I don't understand your point at all. Other than attacking me personally, you seem to be agreeing with me, that the story is pretty complex and there are a lot of different ways to interpret the event.

And if you don't think any of the media is correct, that they all "spin and spin and spin", how do you decide what is true? It seems like on the one hand you're deriding me and attacking me for looking at conflicting stories, and on the other hand you say we'll never get to the bottom of this. What do you think the truth is, and how did you decide that?

j8ear · 08-14-2003, 02:25 PM

Not understanding is understandable. You seem quite set in your own lean/spin/poli-spectrum kind of way, so my thoughts here, if contrary to your constitution, might have a tendancy to slip right through reality as you've chosen to see it.

Spin Spin Spin does not mean incorrect. Nor does it mean correct. Their is no intersection between the two.

Your assertion that one story is wrong and the other correct is FALSE, and your further understanding that the Media will sort it out, because of ~FACTS~ is incorrect. Hopefully we all know that facts are tough to come by. Theories extrapolated from anecdotal and incomplete evidence is often presented as fact, but of course is nothing of the sort. Yet it still effects policy, opinion, and national direction, wierd huh?

Oh and your assertion that there is only two possible truths to the story is also false.

That's all. Sorry if you were feeling personally attacked...your just such an easy target

-bear

HarmlessRabbit · 08-14-2003, 02:32 PM

j8ear

Thank you for not answering my question. It's easy to negate someone else's opinion while not offering one of your own. I ask you again:

What do you think is the true story and how did you come to that conclusion?

At no point did I say that the story I posted was "true" and the rest "false". If you go back to the original post i made, you will see:

Quote:

If true, it certainly seems to weaken the government's justification for trotting this out as a sign of continued terrorist threats.

In fact, in every post I made, you'll see that I said something along the line of "if the story is true."

You're very good at constructing straw men, perhaps you should apply for a job at Longaberger.

Nad Adam · 08-14-2003, 02:36 PM

If AA-missles are outlawed then only outlaws will have AA-missiles. =)

Seriously, what an asshole.

j8ear · 08-14-2003, 03:09 PM

I believe we will never know the truth.

I believe a sting was conducted and an idiot set up. A terrorist
sympathasizing, international arms dealing wanna be flavor of idiot. I am pleased with the net result.

You did indicate that only two possibilities existed and that one was wrong and one right. I propose that AT LEAST one thousand possibilties exist, and that the two you offered are mostly wrong, with each possessing an ever so slight sliver of truth. I hope I didn't say you said something you didn't.

And I am good at a lot of things (starting sentences with AND for example) and appreciate your observations about my skills in your parting shot. Unfortunately I submit that your conclusion is unsupported as nothing was presented in this thread which employed the skill complimented.

-bear

HarmlessRabbit · 08-14-2003, 03:15 PM

You did indicate that only two possibilities existed and that one was wrong and one right.

Oh please, that sort of pedantic behavior might work in Tilted Philosophy, but this is a Politics thread. Of course there are shades of grey to every news story and to every "possibility". I could also post on every Politics thread that the argument the person is making doesn't matter because we could all just be brains in a vat hooked up to a computer.

But, I don't think that would be a pleasant discussion for anyone on this board.

So, you think the guy was a terrorist wanna-be. Many press stories have played him out as a international arms dealer. There is a disconnect between your opinion and the opinion of many of the press stories. How did you decide to adopt the "arms dealing wanna be" position?

And, do you think this line of questioning about the nature of Truth is a useful discussion to launch in every single Politics thread?

onetime2 · 08-14-2003, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
onetime2

I see a big difference between arresting an actual arms dealer and arresting a person willing to sell arms for a profit, but who doesn't actually have the connections or the arms to do so. It's like the difference between arresting someone willing to commit fraud, and arresting someone who defrauded people out of millions.

But rather than ping-pong the same retorts back and forth, I guess the best approach is to wait and see if the ABC story is picked up by anyone else.

Just because he was not good at what he chose to do doesn't make it any less of a crime. Had he been in contact with the right people in Russia we may be talking about a downed jet right now. I do not take that lightly.

j8ear · 08-14-2003, 05:25 PM

I don't visit philo all that much any more. Not sure why...Anywhoo, you, you, you, you, me, me, me, me, them, them, us!

Understood. Good. Now that that's out of my system...

Did you I just watch you print something, get asked about it, lie about it, then say it's uninteresting?

You might be right on that.

How is possible that a man of foreign orgin (british national I understand) who is busted in our twisted little tri-state hudson river area trying to sell foriegn (russian, right?) shoulder fired surface to air missles, capable of taking down a 747 (only occasionally mind you, what with evasion devices and all) to feds pretending to be ~anyone~, is not an international illegal arms dealing wanna-be?

-bear

HarmlessRabbit · 08-14-2003, 06:20 PM

j8ear

You're weird, but I think I like you.

onetime2

My understanding, at least from the abc story, is that the russians contacted him about the arms sale. If that distinction doesn't mean anything to you, then it's not worth rehashing what I've said four or five times now. To put it another way, I see a big difference between a college kid short on cash who was busted because an undercover cop asked him to smuggle some dope, and a Columbian drug lord. If you see these two people as equivalent, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

cliv · 08-14-2003, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonlich
One question though: might this sting and the accompanying media campaign have been pre-planned to cause would-be arms dealers to think twice about their actions? After all, if *I* were an evil arms dealer, I'd be starting to worry whether those "terrorists" I am dealing with aren't really FBI agents...

I agree with you that result is causing arms dealers to worry. I'm just not sure if this was pre-planned (I don't think the US government thinks that far ahead), but I'm sure the US govenment did like the media blitz and to helped it along.

onetime2 · 08-15-2003, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
j8ear

You're weird, but I think I like you.

onetime2

My understanding, at least from the abc story, is that the russians contacted him about the arms sale. If that distinction doesn't mean anything to you, then it's not worth rehashing what I've said four or five times now. To put it another way, I see a big difference between a college kid short on cash who was busted because an undercover cop asked him to smuggle some dope, and a Columbian drug lord. If you see these two people as equivalent, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Number one, I don't think we can debate the facts as currently reported since no one seems to have a clear understanding of what went on.

Number two, even if it is true that the Russians contacted him, do you think they just picked him out of the phone book?

No one is talking about this being the end all be all of missile stings, I think you are reading that into the story. But to think this case is equivalent to a college student smuggling some drugs? How many planes have you seen brought down by a kilo of coke?

08-14-2003, 12:46 AM	#4 (permalink)
Markaz Tilted	Ok, thats a fucking retarded thing. YES IT WAS A STING. The gov hosted a sting to STOP people from actually GETTING REAL ones. Matt Drudge is full of shit, the guy is one sided and posts stuff without facts. He is trying to dig up ALL he can on Arnold right now..on his last show when he was bashind arnold a reported friend of his called and said a few bad things about the candidate Matt wanted, and guess what that tard said? "Ohh you're too harsh on her." bleeh Would this have happened without the gov setting up the sting? Maybe, maybe not. But does it really matter? The bastard was trying to buy a fucking RPG! When I'm president I'm gana crack down on illegals, and make the death penalty go faster...asshats like these need to die. __________________ Tu madre está muy sabrosa

08-14-2003, 05:07 AM	#7 (permalink)
homerhop Insane Location: ÉIRE	I have watched cnn and abc a few times on cable and I found that the news presenters try to make every thing as exciting as possilbe..as example if a cat crossed a road backways they would have fottage of it from every angle and describe it as world breaking. As for the guy with the sting, he was wrong and dumb esp with the attitude on that kind of thing state side at the moment. __________________ its evolution baby

08-14-2003, 05:51 AM	#8 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	It proved that there are people out there that are willing to broker deals with terrorists regardless of what it means to the lives of hundreds if not thousands of innocent people. And for those that don't think there are terrorists out there who would be willing to take down a plane with an AA missile, what the hell are you thinking? They'll load a truck up with explosives and drive it to a neighborhood or under an office tower but they won't pull a freaking trigger? Seems a lot of the critics here think this was just some innocent guy walking down the street when the government decided to target him. I think that kind of says a lot about your perception of our government. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

08-14-2003, 09:45 AM	#12 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I agree with HarmlessRabbit on this one... clearly the guy they caught is an idiot and as others have pointed out regardless of the entrapment he was knowingly selling arms to people who claimed to be willing to use them to blow up planes... That isn't the issue. The issue is the way it is being presented in the press. To hear it and read it you would think that some big evil arms dealer was caught as he was trying to sell arms to terrorists. When actually there was no arms dealer (technically yes he was dealing arms but you know what I mean) and there were no terriorists (I'm not saying there aren't terrorists just that in this case there aren't any). All we have is a desperate idiot willing to sell weapons to make money. Sad. Upsetting. But not worth alarming the nation. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

08-14-2003, 10:01 AM	#14 (permalink)
HarmlessRabbit Junkie Location: San Jose, CA	<b>What do we do with this guy though?</b> They say he's only up for about 15 years, unless a terrorism charge sticks. Sounds about right if the ABC story is right.

08-14-2003, 12:08 AM	#2 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	It was a setup, and it was a sting operation. That is legal in the US, but it would not be in, say, the Netherlands. If a US court convicts this guy, then that is their right; tough luck for the arms dealer... However, I doubt this was "just a desperate man". He knowingly supplied (what he believed was) an AA missile to (what he thought were) terrorists willing to blow up an airplane full of innocent people. And yes, he (thought he) knew they would be doing that with his missile. Now, no matter how "desperate" I am, I'm still aware of the difference between right and wrong, and would never (ever) do what he did. I'm sure the majority of humans would agree with me on this. Note: sting operations and setups are also used to catch would-be child rapists. FBI agents pose as young kids, people chat with them, and when they finally meet, they get arrested. This was in fact used to catch a Dutch citizen when he went to the US to meet the "kid" he met online. Again, in the Netherlands, this would be illegal, and it has caused quite a stir here. However, in the US it is legal, and the guy should have known better. Would the use of a sting in this "child-rape" case be any better/worse than the use of a sting in the case of this arms dealer? As for the US government exploiting this as a sign of continued terrorist threats, I really don't know what to think. On the one hand, it doesn't really prove that there are terrorists who would blow up a plane in the US. It merely shows that the FBI was able to get someone to sell them a missile. On the other hand, terrorists (and rebel groups all over the world) have tried to blow up civilian planes before, and have sometimes succeeded. There is no reason to believe they would not try it in the US. In fact, it is reasonable to assume they would try it if they could. The fact that this guy was willing and "able" to supply the weapon would indicate there are other (more professional) people willing and able to do that.

08-14-2003, 10:33 AM	#15 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	Sorry, but it's not that big of a stretch for this guy to be dealing with someone that would use the weapons. After all this all happened in Newark, right next door to Jersey City where the planning for both the first WTC bombing and the acts on 9/11 occurred. If the government didn't make an announcement about this happening and the press got a hold of it they would be shouted down as trying to cover it up. Personally, I am glad to hear that there are aggressive investigations going on to root out people that are willing to facilitate arms deals with terrorists. This is especially true since I will be travelling out of Newark in about 10 days. Furthermore, I don't care whether this is the guy's first offense or not. Had he been successful and the terrorists he sold to killed members of your family would it make a difference that he was just trying to get himself out of debt and had never done this kind of thing before? __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

08-14-2003, 12:46 PM	#16 (permalink)
HarmlessRabbit Junkie Location: San Jose, CA	<b>onetime2</b> I see a big difference between arresting an actual arms dealer and arresting a person willing to sell arms for a profit, but who doesn't actually have the connections or the arms to do so. It's like the difference between arresting someone willing to commit fraud, and arresting someone who defrauded people out of millions. But rather than ping-pong the same retorts back and forth, I guess the best approach is to wait and see if the ABC story is picked up by anyone else.

08-14-2003, 01:03 PM	#18 (permalink)
HarmlessRabbit Junkie Location: San Jose, CA	<b> It's really interesting the undying compassion you espouse for the perpetrator versus the unequiovocal disgust with the actions of the ~man~.</b> It's even more interesting the complete and utter fabrication of facts that you're capable of in your mind. There are two possible stories here: 1. The US government captured a dangerous international arms dealer in a sting operation. 2. The US government captured a guy desperate for money who had no ability to actually deal in arms, and is now falsely parading him around as if they busted an international arms dealer. ABC news, a respected source, has put forth story #2, story #1 is the generally accepted news story. Somebody is right, somebody is wrong. As journalists look at the facts and independent sources investigate, we'll get to the bottom of it. In any event, this guy is a bad guy and deserves to go to jail, as I already said. I guess examining the facts and trying to get to the truth when there are conflicting stories makes me a bleeding heart liberal?

08-14-2003, 01:41 PM	#20 (permalink)
HarmlessRabbit Junkie Location: San Jose, CA	<b>j8ear</b> I don't understand your point at all. Other than attacking me personally, you seem to be agreeing with me, that the story is pretty complex and there are a lot of different ways to interpret the event. And if you don't think any of the media is correct, that they all "spin and spin and spin", how do you decide what is true? It seems like on the one hand you're deriding me and attacking me for looking at conflicting stories, and on the other hand you say we'll never get to the bottom of this. What do you think the truth is, and how did you decide that?

08-14-2003, 02:25 PM	#21 (permalink)
j8ear Gentlemen Farmer Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey	Not understanding is understandable. You seem quite set in your own lean/spin/poli-spectrum kind of way, so my thoughts here, if contrary to your constitution, might have a tendancy to slip right through reality as you've chosen to see it. Spin Spin Spin does not mean incorrect. Nor does it mean correct. Their is no intersection between the two. Your assertion that one story is wrong and the other correct is FALSE, and your further understanding that the Media will sort it out, because of ~FACTS~ is incorrect. Hopefully we all know that facts are tough to come by. Theories extrapolated from anecdotal and incomplete evidence is often presented as fact, but of course is nothing of the sort. Yet it still effects policy, opinion, and national direction, wierd huh? Oh and your assertion that there is only two possible truths to the story is also false. That's all. Sorry if you were feeling personally attacked...your just such an easy target -bear __________________ It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

08-14-2003, 02:36 PM	#23 (permalink)
Nad Adam Psycho Location: Sweden	If AA-missles are outlawed then only outlaws will have AA-missiles. =) Seriously, what an asshole. __________________ Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. - Psalms 137:9

08-14-2003, 03:09 PM	#24 (permalink)
j8ear Gentlemen Farmer Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey	I believe we will never know the truth. I believe a sting was conducted and an idiot set up. A terrorist sympathasizing, international arms dealing wanna be flavor of idiot. I am pleased with the net result. You did indicate that only two possibilities existed and that one was wrong and one right. I propose that AT LEAST one thousand possibilties exist, and that the two you offered are mostly wrong, with each possessing an ever so slight sliver of truth. I hope I didn't say you said something you didn't. And I am good at a lot of things (starting sentences with AND for example) and appreciate your observations about my skills in your parting shot. Unfortunately I submit that your conclusion is unsupported as nothing was presented in this thread which employed the skill complimented. -bear __________________ It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

08-14-2003, 03:15 PM	#25 (permalink)
HarmlessRabbit Junkie Location: San Jose, CA	<b>You did indicate that only two possibilities existed and that one was wrong and one right.</b> Oh please, that sort of pedantic behavior might work in Tilted Philosophy, but this is a Politics thread. Of course there are shades of grey to every news story and to every "possibility". I could also post on every Politics thread that the argument the person is making doesn't matter because we could all just be brains in a vat hooked up to a computer. But, I don't think that would be a pleasant discussion for anyone on this board. So, you think the guy was a terrorist wanna-be. Many press stories have played him out as a international arms dealer. There is a disconnect between your opinion and the opinion of many of the press stories. How did you decide to adopt the "arms dealing wanna be" position? And, do you think this line of questioning about the nature of Truth is a useful discussion to launch in every single Politics thread?

08-14-2003, 05:25 PM	#27 (permalink)
j8ear Gentlemen Farmer Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey	I don't visit philo all that much any more. Not sure why...Anywhoo, you, you, you, you, me, me, me, me, them, them, us! Understood. Good. Now that that's out of my system... Did you I just watch you print something, get asked about it, lie about it, then say it's uninteresting? You might be right on that. How is possible that a man of foreign orgin (british national I understand) who is busted in our twisted little tri-state hudson river area trying to sell foriegn (russian, right?) shoulder fired surface to air missles, capable of taking down a 747 (only occasionally mind you, what with evasion devices and all) to feds pretending to be ~anyone~, is not an international illegal arms dealing wanna-be? -bear __________________ It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

08-14-2003, 06:20 PM	#28 (permalink)
HarmlessRabbit Junkie Location: San Jose, CA	<b>j8ear</b> You're weird, but I think I like you. <b>onetime2</b> My understanding, at least from the abc story, is that the russians contacted him about the arms sale. If that distinction doesn't mean anything to you, then it's not worth rehashing what I've said four or five times now. To put it another way, I see a big difference between a college kid short on cash who was busted because an undercover cop asked him to smuggle some dope, and a Columbian drug lord. If you see these two people as equivalent, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.