4 ms·

You are underestimating how hard it probably is for spies to enter into Iran, exit safely, and not get captured or killed in between. A satellite-internet conn

You are underestimating how hard it probably is for spies to enter into Iran, exit safely, and not get captured or killed in between. A satellite-internet connected stationary gun aimed at an intersection they know this guy drives through often is a magnificent tool for agent safety. These intel agencies aren’t idiots. If they knew a hit and run would be safe and easy they woulda done it. They’d probably prefer having operatives safe and alive instead of tortured and dead so they can continue operations.

ac29 6y ago
They can't get in spies, but they can bring in a super high tech weapons platform and the manpower to install it in a public location without getting noticed?
- originalvichy 6y ago
  I didn’t say they couldn’t get them in. Escaping a hit and run with this hypothetical three man team is probably harder and more dangerous for the operatives than smuggling in a remote controlled gun. Last time I remember they assassinated a HVT with magnetic bombs on the side of a the target’s car. This led to iranians allied to Mossad getting killed. They obviously can’t risk or possibly can’t find people to risk their life so doing it remotely is the safest bet. And we have no idea how high tech this is. For all we know it’s a standard high caliber rifle attached to a pretty standard mount, with a live feed scope and a trigger puller. A team of engineering freshmen could develop this kind of system given the equipment. If Israel or the US are behind this they have probably had this tech for over a decade.
dogma1138 6y ago
They’ve done just that over and over just two weeks prior to this they’ve killed al-Masri in Teheran by shooting up his car. You still need just as many operatives in country for this fantasy, but you also need to be able to smuggle high end equipment and set it up and test it, this are additional complications that increase the risk of failure and capture nor reduce it.
- originalvichy 6y ago
  Obviously we’re throwing up ideas, but I don’t see how it’s riskier to set up a gun and leave the area as far as possible vs. set up a hit and run and try to successfully escape in a crowded city. You probably can send pre-built turret parts and let one man set it up over a few days easier. Just my opinion
  - dogma1138 6y ago
    Because real life doesn’t work like that. Getting in hardware is harder than getting in people who already are likely in country because they are local assets not agents. You need to set it up, test it, move it to the target all without being detected and still have a backup plan and local observers to support it. It adds complexity and risk it does not reduce it and intelligence agencies dont like complicated.

ac29 6y ago

They can't get in spies, but they can bring in a super high tech weapons platform and the manpower to install it in a public location without getting noticed?

originalvichy 6y ago
I didn’t say they couldn’t get them in. Escaping a hit and run with this hypothetical three man team is probably harder and more dangerous for the operatives than smuggling in a remote controlled gun. Last time I remember they assassinated a HVT with magnetic bombs on the side of a the target’s car. This led to iranians allied to Mossad getting killed. They obviously can’t risk or possibly can’t find people to risk their life so doing it remotely is the safest bet. And we have no idea how high tech this is. For all we know it’s a standard high caliber rifle attached to a pretty standard mount, with a live feed scope and a trigger puller. A team of engineering freshmen could develop this kind of system given the equipment. If Israel or the US are behind this they have probably had this tech for over a decade.

dogma1138 6y ago

They’ve done just that over and over just two weeks prior to this they’ve killed al-Masri in Teheran by shooting up his car. You still need just as many operatives in country for this fantasy, but you also need to be able to smuggle high end equipment and set it up and test it, this are additional complications that increase the risk of failure and capture nor reduce it.

originalvichy 6y ago
Obviously we’re throwing up ideas, but I don’t see how it’s riskier to set up a gun and leave the area as far as possible vs. set up a hit and run and try to successfully escape in a crowded city. You probably can send pre-built turret parts and let one man set it up over a few days easier. Just my opinion
- dogma1138 6y ago
  Because real life doesn’t work like that. Getting in hardware is harder than getting in people who already are likely in country because they are local assets not agents. You need to set it up, test it, move it to the target all without being detected and still have a backup plan and local observers to support it. It adds complexity and risk it does not reduce it and intelligence agencies dont like complicated.