|Quoting BackSeater (Reply 141):|
HISHAMMUDIN HUSSEIN: It was not hostile; it was commercial; it was from our airspace; we're not at war with anybody. Even if we sent them up, are you going to say that we're going to shoot it down?
CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: Well you said that, not me...
HISHAMMUDIN HUSSEIN: No, I'm asking you.
CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: I could not possibly answer that…
HISHAMMUDIN HUSSEIN: If you're not going to shoot it down, what's the point of sending it up?
CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: To see where it's going.
HISHAMMUDIN HUSSEIN: Well to see where it going, you need a fighter for that? If you're talking about military procedures, and if I did shoot it down, you'd be the first to say, how can you shoot down a commercial airline with twent- 14 nationals, half of them Chinese, I'd be in a worse position probably.
CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: Why shoot it down though if it's not hostile?
HISHAMMUDIN HUSSEIN: Well the Americans would.
This is quite an interesting discourse. At the risk of reading to much into the exchange, I have a few thoughts, beginning with this:
CARO: Mr. Minister, what time did you become aware that MH370 was missing?
HUSSEIN: Uh, sometime that morning.
CARO: What time that morning?
Hussein : Does it matter?
Clearly Hussein does not want to reveal the time that morning. So, why??? Here are some interesting comments that if viewed in conjunction suggest something remarkable, perhaps.
In his "it was not hostile" comment, it FEELS like he is giving a portrayal of the event in present time, as if he was in the thick of it. He then says "even if we sent them up". This is a classic example of justification, but NOT with hindsight. Hindsight looks more like "well, I suppose we COULD have". He appears to be inadvertently describing a real time decision making process that HE
This is further supported by his direct challenge to CARO. He says "No, I'm asking you". This strikes me as further personalization and self-justification.
Continuing on, he says "If you're not going to shoot it down, what's the point of sending it up"? Again, this seems to suggest a more intimate knowledge of the situation than he would care to reveal. It sounds like a real time decision, made BY
The real kicker is to be found in his comment here: "Well to see where it going, you need a fighter for that? If you're talking about military procedures, and if I did shoot it down, you'd be the first to say, how can you shoot down a commercial airline with twent- 14 nationals, half of them Chinese, I'd be in a worse position probably".
Here he very clearly speaks in the first person. There is no "we" anymore. And the ruminating, self-absorbed "I'd be in a worse position today" wreaks of self-reflection. FWIW, I believe all this is indicative of someone who knew very early on that morning EXACTLY what he was dealing with. He knew Zaharie (all of UNMO knew of him), he knew of the court decision, and, as I'll point out again, Zaharie had a PARTICULAR dislike for this guy!!!! Somethings amiss...and I really don't buy the idea that all this obfuscation is an effort to cover up general incompetence and radar schematics.
And if any of this is to be believed, this cover up exceeds most reasonably considered scenarios.
And, he announced a few days ago he was stepping down from his transport min position (not defense). This is probably unrelated, but who knows.
[Edited 2014-06-29 18:16:15]