Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Iraqi 'Terror Ships' At Sea  
User currently offlineJcs17 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 8065 posts, RR: 38
Posted (11 years 7 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1398 times:

Interesting article.

http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/3453118?source=Evening%20Standard


America's chickens are coming home to rooooost!
26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13208 posts, RR: 77
Reply 1, posted (11 years 7 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1377 times:

If true, are they just for stashing the goodies out of sight of the UN, or a weapon in their own right?

Something else to consider, what if Saddam HAS got terrorist sleepers in the West?
Nothing to do with Al-Queada, or anyone else known about.
Put yourself in Saddam's shoes, he failed to get Bush snr assassinated, how else to strike back at the USA, if they really threaten his power?
Go back 10 years, Bush snr still alive, no chance of ever developing a real long range missile, impossible to hide, the Israelis would take it out anyway.
But he's already run plenty of agents abroad, killing exiled enemies, covertly getting technologies for WMD's.
Maybe the 1993 WTC bomb got him thinking, not his work, but for Saddam, an inspiration.
Why not slowly, over a few years, put terrorist sleepers into the US and it's allies?
Only to be activate themselves if a major effort to oust the regime happens, so the bombing campaign in late 1998 would not count.
If he falls, he'll be remembered for not only attacking Israel in 1991, but who also took the fight to the homeland of the 'Great Satan'.
If the US finally decides to remove him, what has he got to lose?
They've no links to other terrorists, most won't even have Iraqi passports, Saddam runs a huge intelligence/secret police apparatus, plenty of available manpower.


User currently offlineKLAX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (11 years 7 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1375 times:

This is scary. I wonder what the peace protestors say?

-Clovis


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21467 posts, RR: 53
Reply 3, posted (11 years 7 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1324 times:

If true, that would have been "the bomb" at Powell´s presentation. And since those ships had been followed for months by now, it´s not very plausible that nobody had ever tried to check this out, while every cabbage freighter in the gulf is being raided.

Doesn´t sound plausible, but certainly should be verified.


User currently offlineTWAL1011 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 206 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (11 years 7 months 6 days ago) and read 1309 times:

Did you read the story, Klaus?

Britain and the US are afraid to order interception by naval ships because of fears the crews would scuttle the vessels


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21467 posts, RR: 53
Reply 5, posted (11 years 7 months 6 days ago) and read 1301 times:

And instead invade Iraq as the "less risky" option? I don´t think so.  Wink/being sarcastic

User currently offlineOvelix From Greece, joined Aug 1999, 639 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1268 times:

Simply BS.

The article doesn't provide ANY source exept "A shipping industry source". And the "source" says "If Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction then a very large part of its capability could be afloat on the high seas right now." So says a shipping industry "source".

Yeah, right. Two assumptions in one sentence.

The title is misleading, the source is unreliable, the story is most probably fake.

Don't blindly believe everything you read. Especially from the tambloids.

Kostas


User currently offlinePacificjourney From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2734 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1250 times:

If it's true then it's great news. All those big bad weapons are in one place waiting for some one to stop them. Wonder why that hasn't happened yet ?


" Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
User currently offlineIndianguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1244 times:

Hmmm. The propaganda campaign continues.

Any bets on What "they" are going to find Next?

-Roy


User currently offlineADG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1229 times:

The US are pretty well know for *accidentally* sinking ships with their planes, a few more accidents probably wouldn't be noticed.



ADG


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 10, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1207 times:

The last "accidental" sinking of a ship was done by Iraq's pretty French friends Bron...

The last time the US did it to my knowledge was the Tonkin incident which started the major direct US involvement in Vietnam, and that was quite deliberate (even if the reason was probably someone getting scared at a lifefire exercise instead of being really under attack).



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineIlyushin96M From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 2609 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1188 times:

How convenient is it that the feared WMDs are aboard ships that can't be approached, for fear of them being scuttled by their crews? I think it's just another excuse, and a flimsy one at that, to prove Iraq has WMDs - "We know they are aboard those ships, even though we can't prove it." Whatever.

User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21467 posts, RR: 53
Reply 12, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1168 times:

Looks a lot like panicking spin doctors´ "plan B"...  Wink/being sarcastic

User currently offlineGalaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 24
Reply 13, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1145 times:

I have to agree with others on this one, there are alot of "ifs" in this information, there has to be more investigation to prove anything.


"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
User currently offlineJetService From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4798 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1137 times:

It's funny watching you folks act like you know what the hell you're talking about. LOL!!!


"Shaddap you!"
User currently offlineADG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1125 times:

jw,

There have been more incidents than that, one that springs to mind was in 1991 where they *accidentially* launched a weapon of an FA-18 and sank a merchant marine ship, killing it's radio officer. Whoops.

How convenient is it that the feared WMDs are aboard ships that can't be approached, for fear of them being scuttled by their crews?

I'm not sure I see the issue with that .... isn't the aim of all this chest beating to disarm him, if they're on the bottom of the ocean he's disarmed isn't he?




ADG


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1125 times:

I agree Jetservice. This is just a rumour, guys. It's not as if the U.S. or U.K. governments have announced it. It may be true or it may be false. Who knows, because intel agencies aren't saying anything either way.

Either the rumour firms up in the next few days or it will disappear. I expect the later.

Charles


User currently offlineRyu2 From Taiwan, joined Aug 2002, 493 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (11 years 7 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1059 times:

There have been more incidents than that, one that springs to mind was in 1991 where they *accidentially* launched a weapon of an FA-18 and sank a merchant marine ship, killing it's radio officer. Whoops.

Don't forget the Japanese fishing boat that a US sub ran into and sank off Hawaii. It was very recent, I think 2001 or 2002?


User currently offlineTWAL1011 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 206 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (11 years 7 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1044 times:

Don't forget the Japanese fishing boat that a US sub ran into and sank off Hawaii.

That's something we Americans don't do, Ryu2. It was a terrible thing.


User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (11 years 7 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1032 times:

No, what's funny, JetService, is the same old, tired, excusing voices, in such a hurry to apologize, explain away, and shrug off ANYTHIING that would indicate that terrorists or Saddam are up to something that could set of the war they've been screaming to stop.

Maybe it is a rumor, but may I ask ADG, Ovelix, Indianguy, Klaus, and any others, why are you so incredibly eager, as Ovelix put it, to instantly say it's bullshit? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but who are you guys to just dismiss it out of hand? Oh, I know-you're the folks who ALWAYS dismiss anything western intelligence, most especially U.S. intelligence-might come up with.

People like you do more to advance the cause of people like Saddam Hussein than anyone on the globe, because you're so damned DESPERATE to clear him of ANYTHING that might mean war.

Neville Chamberlain would be proud.


User currently offlineROLEX01 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (11 years 7 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1015 times:

ADG, for being so against the US and for being somewhat of a Peace Activist, you sure do have a lot of military hardware on your website.

User currently offlineADG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (11 years 7 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1010 times:

Maybe it is a rumor, but may I ask ADG, Ovelix, Indianguy, Klaus, and any others, why are you so incredibly eager, as Ovelix put it, to instantly say it's bullshit?

So exactly where did I say it was bullshit?

Rolex01,

So exactly where have I said that I'm a peace activist? Nor, by the way, have I ever said i'm against the US .. these are ASSumptions made by a select few and nothing more.






ADG


User currently offlineOvelix From Greece, joined Aug 1999, 639 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (11 years 7 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 997 times:

the same old, tired, excusing voices, in such a hurry to apologize, explain away, and shrug off ANYTHIING that would indicate that terrorists or Saddam are up to something that could set of the war they've been screaming to stop.

Alpha1 will you ever stop slander people with your arbitary views about their motives?

I will say it again: The article is bullhsit because the title is misleading, the source is unreliable, the story is most probably fake.

Where did anyone "apologised" or "explained" anything??

Kostas

[Edited 2003-02-24 11:16:38]

User currently offlineScotty From UK - Scotland, joined Dec 1999, 1875 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (11 years 7 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 990 times:

Why is this bullshit? If you had something to hide, wouldnt you make sure that you sent it to your best mate's house so that nobody would find it at your own place?

Why is the title misleading? It is from a tabloid journal of some repute and is the main evening newspaper for London.

Why do you say the source is unreliable? Do you know what it is?

Why is the story most probably fake? Where is your evidence to support that.

if someone had said on September 9th 2001 "terrorists are preparing to blow up the World Trade Centre using hijacked airliners and plastic knives" you'd probably have put that down to being fake as well.

I'm as sceptical as anyone, but sometimes you gotta take these things seriously. The jury is out on this one. The up side of it is that the navies have it covered

Scotty


User currently offlineOvelix From Greece, joined Aug 1999, 639 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (11 years 7 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 990 times:

Why is this bullshit? If you had something to hide, wouldn't you make sure that you sent it to your best mate's house so that nobody would find it at your own place?

Yes. IF. The whole article bases itself on an if


Why is the title misleading? It is from a tabloid journal of some repute and is the main evening newspaper for London.

The title "Iraqi terror ship" is misleading because there is no evidence that it's Iraqi and that it's used by terrorists. Read below.

Why do you say the source is unreliable? Do you know what it is?

Of course I know how to distinguish a source as a reliable or not. I am a journalist for 13 years. The source (as it appears here) is unreliable because the writer gives no names, no agency, no dates, no nothing. The writer claims that "A shipping industry source" told him that "Three huge cargo ships feared to be carrying Iraqi weapons of mass destruction are being tracked around the world by British and American intelligence". Does that seem reliable? Only a British tamploid would print that.

Why is the story most probably fake? Where is your evidence to support that.

Read above. The writer has no evidence apart from his imagination. "A shipping industry source" is his only source for Intelligence acts? I don't think so. The writer should try to confirm that information. You cannot write something really serious based ONLY on one person's information.

if someone had said on September 9th 2001 "terrorists are preparing to blow up the World Trade Centre using hijacked airliners and plastic knives" you'd probably have put that down to being fake as well.

If someone had said so, he would be tied in Guantanamo by now.  Smile
Seriously, the one certain thing about REAL terrorist threats is that they never appear in the press in advance. Got it? If it's on the press it's screwed.

I'm as sceptical as anyone, but sometimes you gotta take these things seriously. The jury is out on this one. The up side of it is that the navies have it covered.

I am sceptical too. But think about it yourself. If the government wants to track down possible WMD material, would they leak it to the papers? If yes, why? If not, why?


Kostas


25 Scotty : Alternatively, since it appears that no other paper has covered this, its either a scoop for the Standard on something the Government wants to keep qu
26 Ovelix : Scotty, I was not refering to the source itself but to the info it provided. We certainly don't name our sources when we don't want to, I was talking
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Are Most Foods Packed At Sea Level? posted Mon Oct 16 2006 11:00:24 by Lehpron
The Real ‘Survivor’ – Those Kids Stranded At Sea posted Mon May 2 2005 04:08:47 by FlyingTexan
Iraqi Terrorsts ... Grasping At Straws? posted Wed Feb 2 2005 23:54:36 by Boeing Nut
Tsunami: Girl Survives 2 Days At Sea posted Wed Dec 29 2004 07:32:35 by 777ER
At Sea... Life Is Good. posted Thu Jan 1 2004 07:59:04 by CanadianNorth
Woman Rescued After 13 Hours At Sea! posted Sat Oct 11 2003 19:20:01 by 727LOVER
UK Police Foli Terror Attack At Queen Mum Funeral posted Fri Apr 12 2002 15:45:45 by Ryanb741
Sea Ships Stuff posted Fri Mar 24 2006 18:58:27 by 757MDE
51 Terror Suspects Stopped At US-Mexico Border posted Thu Dec 15 2005 17:52:29 by Slider
Bush:US Foiled At Least 10 Terror Plots posted Fri Oct 7 2005 07:47:45 by Thumper3181