Comments on: And you can have some nice OEM versions of Windows XP for free, too.

And you can have some nice OEM versions of Windows XP for free, too.

humuhumu — Wed, 13 Aug 2003 02:06:36 -0800

Pssst... got some luvverly bits of rocket here, guv'nor. Bring darn a plane like nobody's business. Yours for $90,000. Nah, 'cos I like you, I'll do you a deal: $85,000.

Black market missiles, anybody? [apologies for the Cockney accent]

By: humuhumu

humuhumu — Wed, 13 Aug 2003 02:08:19 -0800

Favourite quote from this: "But the fact that someone is trying to sell these weapons in the US is nothing new. I ran into a Russian arms dealer a block from the White House, who was trying to sell these things. They were even in a catalogue." Yuri - are you selling illegal missiles on my patch again? I've warned you about this - go on, off with you! If I see you here again, it'll be a night in the cells for you...

By: twine42

twine42 — Wed, 13 Aug 2003 02:39:49 -0800

hang on... man tries to sell missile. But it's not an illegal arms sale, it's a 'terrorist plot'? Anyone care to explain why?

By: humuhumu

humuhumu — Wed, 13 Aug 2003 02:48:59 -0800

It's a terrorist plot because he thought he was selling it to terrorists, apparently. So that seems to qualify to be labelled terrorist these days. I'm always a little wary of 'stings' like this which are pulled along for so long. The man had been tracked from the moment he started negotiating to buy the thing. Why wasn't he arrested then? Why did they lead him on until he had sold it and smuggled it into the US? What if they'd lost track of him (and more worryingly, the missle) when he'd got to the US? You'd think that they wouldn't have gone that far if they didn't think they'd lose the missile, but why chance it anyway? Is it all just a way to get bigger headlines and a longer prison sentence?

By: twine42

twine42 — Wed, 13 Aug 2003 03:00:44 -0800

In other news, selling your car to a boy racer will get you fined for speeding. I'd like to assume that the relevant authorities couldn't lose him and his rocket launcher if they tried, but I know what these 'professionals' are like.

By: thedude256

thedude256 — Wed, 13 Aug 2003 03:59:34 -0800

I'd like to assume that the relevant authorities couldn't lose him and his rocket launcher if they tried, but I know what these 'professionals' are like Actually, they apparently went as far as giving him a dummy rocket.

By: influx

influx — Wed, 13 Aug 2003 04:10:50 -0800

What kind of arms dealer wouldn't realise it was a dummy?

By: wfrgms

wfrgms — Wed, 13 Aug 2003 04:18:20 -0800

In addition I just saw on the news that two arrests were made in NYC of "gem dealers" who assisted with the monetary transfer. Gem dealers? Oy vey! But it's not an illegal arms sale, it's a 'terrorist plot'? Anyone care to explain why? Umm... because terrorist use these things to shoot your commercial airline ridding ass out of the sky? In other news, selling your car to a boy racer will get you fined for speeding. Am I to understand that a few people here are actually coming to the defense of this scum?

By: humuhumu

humuhumu — Wed, 13 Aug 2003 04:24:11 -0800

Am I to understand that a few people here are actually coming to the defense of this scum? Don't look at me... in my opinion, major arms dealers are up there with major drug dealers. This guy needs locking away for a long time. This isn't a terrorist plot but it could easily have been, and this guy certainly thought he was involved in one.

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Wed, 13 Aug 2003 04:42:24 -0800

Umm... because terrorist use these things to shoot your commercial airline ridding ass out of the sky? Umm... because the article even notes the arrested suspect is not suspected to be a terrorist or a member of any terrorist group? Because finding out if he is is somewhat significant instead of just screaming "terrorism!" and basing investigations on misinterpretations of motive? Let's not even start the "any object used on 9/11 mshould be banned then, right?" argument, mkay? Am I to understand that a few people here are actually coming to the defense of this scum? Yes. I support terrorism and the murder of hundreds of people for my dastardly suggestion that one not rush to conclusions and generate pre-emptive hysteria that distorts a criminal investigation. Why the fuck do I goddamn hate freedom so damn much?

By: brettski

brettski — Wed, 13 Aug 2003 04:55:48 -0800

But it's not an illegal arms sale, it's a 'terrorist plot'? Anyone care to explain why? The BBC report that broke this last night suggested that the dealer only agreed to sell the missile on the condition it was used to bring down air force one.

By: tittergrrl

tittergrrl — Wed, 13 Aug 2003 05:20:46 -0800

The BBC report that broke this last night suggested that the dealer only agreed to sell the missile on the condition it was used to bring down air force one. And how would they verify this? Did the arms dealer bring a notary public with him to stamp a contract or something? And what would happen if it was used for something else? "Cmon guuuuuuuuyys! You prooommmmissseeeeddd! I'm tellin' my mom!" Not that this claim of conditions by the BBC isn't true, but sounds like the guy could have been rooked either way.

By: brettski

brettski — Wed, 13 Aug 2003 05:56:38 -0800

I think the insinuation was that if they didn't he wouldn't supply them with the 49 others he had agreed to buy...

By: influx

influx — Wed, 13 Aug 2003 05:56:41 -0800

The BBC report that broke this last night suggested that the dealer only agreed to sell the missile on the condition it was used to bring down air force one. You must have been watching that wacky Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation, rather than the British Broadcasting Corporation. I watched the 10 o'clock news, Newsnight, and a fair chunk of News 24 last night, and at no point did they say any such thing. The BBC were typically reticent to jump to conclusions. But his buyer was an undercover FBI agent and the arms dealer's voice is heard on tape saying he wanted the missile to be used to shoot down a large passenger plane. The FBI have denied that the plane in question was Air Force One, the US President's official aircraft.

By: davehat

davehat — Wed, 13 Aug 2003 06:04:10 -0800

"This was a guy who would sell to anyone. This was not an organisation. It was a sting," one US intelligence source said. Asked last night whether the attempted missile sale amounted to a terrorist plot or simply an abortive illegal arms deal, [an FBI official] said: "So far, I would characterise it as both. Hmmm, well that clears that up then. brettski: I'm not sure, but I think you may have bargled two "facets" in the report.... IIRC, the BBC mentioned that the seller had explicitly been looking for a buyer who would target a commercial plane and boasted that it could even bring down Airforce One. The BBC website's article on this issue plays down the danger to Airforce One. I watched so much news last night, I can't remember if they have changed their reporting though, so perhaps you are right. On Preview Influx seems to agree with me on this though.....

By: ednopantz

ednopantz — Wed, 13 Aug 2003 06:16:52 -0800

You must have been watching that wacky Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation, rather than the British Broadcasting Corporation. Wait, there's a difference? (Happy fun copyright infringement courtesy of the knuckleheads at freepers.)

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Wed, 13 Aug 2003 06:56:33 -0800

because the article even notes the arrested suspect is not suspected to be a terrorist or a member of any terrorist group? Because finding out if he is is somewhat significant instead of just screaming "terrorism!" The very first line of the CNN article states: "A man who authorities say plotted to sell a surface-to-air missile to what he thought was a Muslim extremist is expected to appear in a New Jersey courtroom today..." I think attempting to sell a missle to (apparent) extremists makes you an accessory to terrorism nonetheless, and that is the real point. XQ, et al, would you prefer the gentlemen from the FBI shrug their shoulders, tousle the guy's hair and say, "Well, it's his business what he does with this rocket launcher, I'm sure nothing will come of it"? What makes you think you have any conspiratorial data about lack of due-process aside from what is being reported? It seems bizarre some of your immediate concerns go out to the alleged criminal's rights in this case, rather than the innocent people who would undoubtedly die because of this arms sale. Yes. I support terrorism and the murder of hundreds of people for my dastardly suggestion that one not rush to conclusions and generate pre-emptive hysteria that distorts a criminal investigation. Why the fuck do I goddamn hate freedom so damn much? Why don't you wait til all the information comes out before you hyperventilate and create your own pre-emptive hysteria, hm?

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Wed, 13 Aug 2003 07:16:17 -0800

I think attempting to sell a missle to (apparent) extremists makes you an accessory to terrorism nonetheless, and that is the real point. XQ, et al, would you prefer the gentlemen from the FBI shrug their shoulders, tousle the guy's hair and say, "Well, it's his business what he does with this rocket launcher, I'm sure nothing will come of it"? Gosh, that's a stupid and vicious way to spin it. My point was that instead of immediately declaring this story a "stunning victory in the war on terrorism" we should get some actual facts as to whether or not this was actually an attempt at terrorism or an attempt at an arms deal. Why is that significant? The article itself says so: "The US government is also trying to buy up stockpiles of the missiles around the world. " Now, as we all know, the United States has NEVER been involved in covert weapons deals (cough), but it seems to me that the act of the US openly claiming an interest in purchasing missile launchers as a means of getting them out of the hands of terrorists is an interesting one that deserves discussion beyond "oh, well the guy was a terrorist, case closed." Why don't you wait til all the information comes out before you hyperventilate and create your own pre-emptive hysteria, hm? My second comment up there was a sarcastic response to the somewhat condescending "you don't HATE children, do you?" tone of wfrgms' comment. I was addressing the incorrect suggestion that asking for more information on this was tantamount to suggesting the suspect should have been coddled. But, of course, it would be really simplistic to have interpreted it that way. You know, like you did right there in your search for an excuse to attack me.

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Wed, 13 Aug 2003 07:37:37 -0800

My point was that instead of immediately declaring this story a "stunning victory in the war on terrorism" we should get some actual facts Neither the Guardian or CNN called it a "stunning victory", so why the quotes? Oh, because that's what those bastards were going to say. Gosh, that's a stupid and vicious way to spin it. ...your search for an excuse to attack me. Wow, I'm stupid, vicious and I "attacked" you, all for simply saying we should wait on facts before assuming this guy got mislabeled a Terrorist by the feds. Please carry on with your pre-remptive hysteria.

By: bwg

bwg — Wed, 13 Aug 2003 07:39:09 -0800

The BBC report that broke this last night suggested that the dealer only agreed to sell the missile on the condition it was used to bring down air force one. It would be a shame to lose an actor of Harrison Ford's calibre...

By: davehat

davehat — Wed, 13 Aug 2003 07:48:48 -0800

XQUZYPHYR: I have to say, the US stockpiling snippet is, to me, a most intriguing factor in this particular case. Given that some rogue weapons will be of US origin, does that mean that US tax payers fund not only the production of weapons, but also the cost of buying the same ones back again? Something like that could really be taken advantage of....

By: Ignatius J. Reilly

Ignatius J. Reilly — Wed, 13 Aug 2003 08:49:23 -0800

Given that some rogue weapons will be of US origin, does that mean that US tax payers fund not only the production of weapons, but also the cost of buying the same ones back again? It also means that we supply material support to terrorists, and thus immediately after one of these rockets is used in an attack in, say, Buffalo, we will have to respond by bombing the hell out of, say, Cleveland.

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Wed, 13 Aug 2003 09:18:17 -0800

Sounds fine^

By: inpHilltr8r

inpHilltr8r — Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:12:20 -0800

What kind of arms dealer wouldn't realise it was a dummy? It wouldn't be particularly complex to critically disable a real one, such that you couldn't enable it without a manufacturing setup serious enough to build the damn things in the first place.