GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12707 posts, RR: 80 Reply 1, posted (10 years 3 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1041 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.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20850 posts, RR: 55 Reply 3, posted (10 years 3 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 988 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.
Ovelix From Greece, joined Aug 1999, 639 posts, RR: 4 Reply 6, posted (10 years 3 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 932 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.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 10, posted (10 years 3 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 871 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).
Ilyushin96M From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 2609 posts, RR: 14 Reply 11, posted (10 years 3 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 852 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.
Galaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 27 Reply 13, posted (10 years 3 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 809 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
JetService From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4798 posts, RR: 13 Reply 14, posted (10 years 3 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 801 times:
It's funny watching you folks act like you know what the hell you're talking about. LOL!!!
ADG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (10 years 3 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 789 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?
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (10 years 3 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 789 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.
Ryu2 From Taiwan, joined Aug 2002, 460 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (10 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 723 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?
TWAL1011 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 194 posts, RR: 2 Reply 18, posted (10 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 708 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.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (10 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 696 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.
ADG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (10 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 674 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.
Ovelix From Greece, joined Aug 1999, 639 posts, RR: 4 Reply 22, posted (10 years 2 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 661 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??
Scotty From UK - Scotland, joined Dec 1999, 1875 posts, RR: 3 Reply 23, posted (10 years 2 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 654 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
Ovelix From Greece, joined Aug 1999, 639 posts, RR: 4 Reply 24, posted (10 years 2 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 654 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.
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
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 8065 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12707 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20850 posts, 
From Greece, joined Aug 1999, 639 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2698 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, 
From Taiwan, joined Aug 2002, 460 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined Dec 1999, 1875 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
