How a Malaysian Playboy Controlled the Most Powerful Naval Force on the Planet
19 replies, posted
[url]https://medium.com/war-is-boring/how-a-malaysian-playboy-controlled-the-most-powerful-naval-force-on-the-planet-eddb7d7fbf48[/url]
[quote]It was the middle of September 2013 and the U.S. Justice Department had laid a trap.
Its target was the Malaysian millionaire defense contractor Leonard Glenn Francis. But no one called him by his real name. At six feet tall and more than 300 pounds, he earned the nickname “Fat Leonard.” His buddies in the Navy called him something else — the Tony Soprano of Singapore.
At the time, Leonard’s business — Glenn Defense Marine Asia — held contracts with the U.S. Navy worth more than $200 million. Anytime a ship in the U.S. Pacific Fleet needed servicing, there was a good chance it stopped at a port serviced by GDMA.
When the ships docked in Fat Leonard’s ports, he squeezed every buck he could out of the Navy and the American taxpayer. Beginning in 2004, Fat Leonard overcharged for basic services — and federal investigators are still totaling up the amount he suckered out of the Navy.
[/quote]
that title is the most clickbait thing ever
[QUOTE=343N;48590968]that title is the most clickbait thing ever[/QUOTE]
Not really. It's fairly accurate, if not contorted a bit.
[QUOTE=343N;48590968]that title is the most clickbait thing ever[/QUOTE]
This actually happened though.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48590988]Not really. It's fairly accurate, if not contorted a bit.[/QUOTE]
I don't see how overcharging a navy for services means you control them.
[QUOTE=Ivef;48591053]I don't see how overcharging a navy for services means you control them.[/QUOTE]
More than overcharging. He basically received fleet movements as well as had navy personnel on his payroll to manipulate the fleet into traveling near docks his company operated from.
It's a long read but it's an interesting article.
[QUOTE=Ivef;48591053]I don't see how overcharging a navy for services means you control them.[/QUOTE]
He paid off naval officers.
People who pay others are the ones in charge. That's how the world works.
Sure, the title is a bit of an exaggeration - this guy couldn't order military strikes with the US fleet, but being the man putting cash into people's pockets makes him the man with the leverage, none the less.
Don't be so picky on word play.
Sure he couldn't literally order the fleet, but it seems clear he did exert control over it.
[QUOTE=MuTAnT;48591078]Sure he couldn't literally order the fleet, but it seems clear he did exert control over it.[/QUOTE]
You don't think the title is in any way misleading?
[QUOTE=Apache249;48591089]You don't think the title is in any way misleading?[/QUOTE]
It's as if they don't teach the definition of "metaphor" in English classes anymore :v:
Seriously, article titles like this have been around since free press was invented.
Why not talk about the actual article - which honestly isn't really that far from the literal meaning of the title?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48591073]He paid off naval officers.
People who pay others are the ones in charge. That's how the world works.
Sure, the title is a bit of an exaggeration - this guy couldn't order military strikes with the US fleet, but being the man putting cash into people's pockets makes him the man with the leverage, none the less.
Don't be so picky on word play.[/QUOTE]
This is a military topic, to pretend that is anything else to defend the usage of "Control" is rather silly.
When you think someone is in control of a military force you think that they control that forces' target, they are capable of giving orders of attack.
It is not a matter of being picky over word-play; Subject matters.
[QUOTE=Skwee;48591123]This is a military topic, to pretend that is anything else to defend the usage of "Control" is rather silly.
When you think someone is in control of a military force you think that they control that forces' target, they are capable of giving orders of attack.
It is not a matter of being picky over word-play; Subject matters.[/QUOTE]
Come on, you can't seriously be this dumb. I'm am certain you have seen titles of articles like this before, that exaggerate the story a bit for a couple more readers to click on it.
If anyone seriously clicked this thread expecting a Malaysian playboy to literally be in charge "of the most powerful naval force in the world" to the point where he could direct naval attacks, then they [I]really[/I] need to get some critical thinking skills in their head.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48591152]Come on, you can't seriously be this dumb. I'm am certain you have seen titles of articles like this before, that exaggerate the story a bit for a couple more readers to click on it.
If anyone seriously clicked this thread expecting a Malaysian playboy to literally be in charge "of the most powerful naval force in the world" to the point where he could direct naval attacks, then they [I]really[/I] need to get some critical thinking skills in their head.[/QUOTE]
I have most certainly seen articles like this before. Does that somehow make it excusable for you? When i see someone texting and driving I don't think it's okay simply because I've seen it before.
Does me making an argument against something that happens all the time make me "this dumb" to you? Why do you assume I am dumb because I have made an argument against misleading titles?
When I clicked on it I was thinking, "A Malaysian playboy could not possibly be in control of the United States Navy," and it turned out I was right. It had nothing to do with my belief in the an articles title, it had to do with my disbelief.
Sure the title did it's job, it got me to click on it. Whether it was about belief or disbelief didn't matter. But how about an honest title?
"The Tale of a Malaysian Playboy's Influence and Corruption of the United States Navy"
It doesn't imply that he is controlling the navy. He is influencing it, and corrupting certain people within it. Most importantly, it isn't even a less appealing title, at least in my eyes.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48591152]Come on, you can't seriously be this dumb. I'm am certain you have seen titles of articles like this before, that exaggerate the story a bit for a couple more readers to click on it.
If anyone seriously clicked this thread expecting a Malaysian playboy to literally be in charge "of the most powerful naval force in the world" to the point where he could direct naval attacks, then they [I]really[/I] need to get some critical thinking skills in their head.[/QUOTE]
"There's nothing wrong with clickbait. Just expect it." :incredible:
"The man who influenced the US Navy "
More fitting.
[QUOTE=Jame's;48591236]"The man who influenced the US Navy "
More fitting.[/QUOTE]
Who the fuck would want to read that
This is one of the reasons why even though the US has the largest and the most expensive armed forces, they could still do better.
You place immense trust and money in the hands of various contractors who probably care more about the rewards than the services they have to deliver.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;48592267]This is one of the reasons why even though the US has the largest and the most expensive armed forces, they could still do better.
You place immense trust and money in the hands of various contractors who probably care more about the rewards than the services they have to deliver.[/QUOTE]
This is a general problem in the US; the private sector is far too powerful and exerts far too much influence over the government.
"Fat guy who the seamen couldn't resist"
At least the worst part only went on for a couple years
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.