Iraqi 'terror ships' at sea

http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/3453118?source=Evening ^

[lightsabre]

Iraqi 'terror ships' at sea By Patrick McGowan, Evening Standard 19 February 2003 Three huge cargo ships feared to be carrying Iraqi weapons of mass destruction are being tracked around the world by British and American intelligence. The vessels, which have been at sea for three months, are believed to be carrying weapons smuggled out through Syria or Jordan. They are all refusing frequent requests to provide details of their cargo or destination and officials are worried that the vessels are maintaining radio silence in clear contravention of maritime law, which states all ships should be in constant communication. Despite grave suspicions of what is on board, Britain and the US are afraid to order interception by naval ships because of fears the crews would scuttle the vessels, each between 35,000 and 40,000 tonnes. If they are carrying chemical, biological or nuclear weapons this could cause catastrophic environmental damage. The vessels have called briefly at a handful of Arab countries, including Yemen, but they have been resupplied at sea with food, fuel and water by other ships. All three were chartered by a shipping agent based in Egypt and are understood to be sailing under three different flags of convenience. The discovery of weapons of mass destruction would be a huge boost to George Bush and Tony Blair and would represent the "smoking gun" they need to justify invading Iraq. However, environmental concerns are preventing boarding of the vessels, whose positions are provided by satellite 24 hours a day. They set sail just a few days after UN inspector Hans Blix returned with his team to Iraq to search for Saddam's weapons arsenal. Iraq is effectively blockaded by US and Royal Navy ships patrolling the Gulf and the three vessels are not thought to have set sail from there. A shipping industry source said: "These ships have maintained radio silence for long periods and for a considerable time they have been steaming round in everdecreasing circles. "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." In the build-up to possible war in Iraq, meanwhile, another huge wave of British troops flew out to the Gulf today. About 1,000 members of 16 Air Assault Brigade, including paratroopers, infantry and support units, left RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on three overnight flights. The troops, who are mainly from the 3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment, based in Colchester, are among the last expected to be deployed to the Gulf region. A group of 180 soldiers were the last to leave at just after 6am today when they boarded a passenger charter jet before heading off to a secret location. They will join around 40,000 other British military personnel who have been sent to the Gulf over the last few weeks in preparation for a possible conflict to disarm Iraq.

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

Thanks for the post.

It's easy to start a new paragraph. Just type in < p > at the point where you want the paragraph to begin.

[Blueflag]

There's not a lot of deep water right 'off the coast of Iraq'. I wonder what map ABC 'news' looked at. Any large ship steaming in circles outside the shipping lanes in the Gulf would be very obvious

[thinking]

there is a simple solution...sink them!

[Republican Red]

This report was headlined on Drudge last night. An article in the British paper Independence was "reporting" on it.
Druge now has no mention of the article.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Never, ever, ever do that again young heathen!!

Ahrrrrrr!

But good post, though.

[Eowyn-of-Rohan]

Maybe these ships are going to be Saddam's ticket out...his personal exile convoy.

[mware]

Just sink the damn things !!!

What...and have the environmentalist blame us because of an environmental disaster????

I would rather they trail this until out special op's go in and take it out. Can't wait to see what nations names are on the parts.

[Lion's Cub]

There would be no environmental disaster. We have weapons that would vaporize any bio/chem agents that were there. But even if we didn't, the ocean itself would so dilute anything as to render it harmless.

I read about this yesterday in the thread piasa linked. Having slept on the matter, this makes no sense. With all of our missile capabilities, why would these ships essentially just sit there?

IMO, our news organizations are correct to go slow with this story.

[xzins]

Hey Blue, you are the naval expert come to think of it.

How could you take these down without polluting the ocean with their stores? Do we really worry if vx or biologics get dumped into the sea...are they even potent in that environment?

Also, any way to burn them with heat rounds setting them afire?

[McGruff]

I remember in the last couple of days someone on TV commenting on how easy it would to be to sail a terrorist ship up the Hudson river (around NY City) and release an attack.

I found it strange why he would bring this up. Maybe he had this information then.

[mikhailovich]

Can inspectors swim? Just wondering.

[Library Lady]

Just sink the damn things !!!

Then the lefties would insist that Bush produce the proof that there were WMD on the ships. What proof? It would be at the bottom of the ocean. According to them it would be just another right-wing conspiracy to get us into the war.

[Eternal_Bear]

Very curious indeed. I also wonder how many Syrian, Iranian, Libyan, N Korean and Chinese terror ships are now sailing or can sail soon? Might be scores out there.

[txradioguy]

AMEN!!! A couple of Mk. 48 torpedos from one of the SSN's in the region would do the trick. I bet that's how they're tracking these ships in the first place.

[Frapster]

lol - welcome to 'life as we know it' on FR. Thanks for the article - I hadn't seen it.

[vin-one]

the only problem with vaporizing these ships is if they have, Nuke's on board,
that would be a big oops on our part
I would imagine our seals are ready, willing, and able to take care of this job.

[Uncle Miltie]

Do we have any nukes that need testing? Incineration at sea would seem a comparatively safe course of action.

[txradioguy]

Not necessairily. We could blow the ships without detonating the nukes. They have to have their trigger mechanism activated and torpedoing the ship would not do that. Then when it's been sunk, we simply send in Navy divers to inspect the cargo and determine if anything needs to be removed.

[VOA]

bump

[vin-one]

well I did know that I was thinking more along the lines of the waste seeping out from
the bottom of the ocean for the next 10,000 years. but then again if it is off the coast of Iraq no big deal.