Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Three mystery ships are tracked over suspected 'weapons' cargo
independent.co.uk ^ | 2/19/03

Posted on 02/18/2003 4:47:00 PM PST by knak

Three giant cargo ships are being tracked by US and British intelligence on suspicion that they might be carrying Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Each with a deadweight of 35,000 to 40,000 tonnes, the ships have been sailing around the world's oceans for the past three months while maintaining radio silence in clear violation of international maritime law, say authoritative shipping industry sources.

The vessels left port in late November, just a few days after UN weapons inspectors led by Hans Blix began their search for the alleged Iraqi arsenal on their return to the country.

Uncovering such a deadly cargo on board would give George Bush and Tony Blair the much sought-after "smoking gun" needed to justify an attack on Saddam Hussein's regime, in the face of massive public opposition to war.

The ships were chartered by a shipping agent based in Egypt and are flying under the flags of three different countries. The continued radio silence since they left port, in addition to the captains' failure to provide information on their cargoes or their destinations, is a clear breach of international maritime laws.

The vessels are thought to have spent much of their time in the deep waters of the Indian Ocean, berthing at sea when they need to collect supplies of fuel and food. They have berthed in a handful of Arab countries, including Yemen.

American and British military forces are believed to be reluctant to stop and search the vessels for fear that any intervention might result in them being scuttled. If they were carrying chemical and biological weapons, or fissile nuclear material, and they were to be sunk at sea, the environmental damage could be catastrophic.

Washington and London might also want to orchestrate any raids so that they can present the ships as "evidence" that President Saddam is engaged in "material breach" of UN resolutions. This could provide the trigger for military strikes. While security sources in London last night were unable to provide information on any surveillance operation, the movement of the three ships is the source of growing concern among maritime and intelligence experts.

A shipping industry source told The Independent: "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. These ships have maintained radio silence for long periods and, for a considerable time, they have been steaming around in ever-decreasing circles."

The ships are thought to have set sail from a country other than Iraq to avoid running the gauntlet of Western naval vessels patrolling the Gulf. Defence experts believe that, if they are carrying weapons of mass destruction, these could have been smuggled out through Syria or Jordan.

Despite hundreds of searches by UN inspectors, no evidence has yet been found of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programmes. A succession of "dossiers" presented by Downing Street has been criticised for providing inaccurate information, with the most recent one subject to ridicule because a student's 11-year-old doctoral thesis was being passed off as current intelligence. There was a further setback for Washington and London when the accuracy of satellite photographs shown to the United Nations by Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, purporting to show Iraqi officials moving incriminating evidence from a suspected site, was questioned by Hans Blix.

Mr Blix said: "The reported movement of munitions at the site could just as easily have been a routine activity as a movement of proscribed munitions in anticipation of an imminent inspection."

Attempts to link the Iraqi regime to al-Qa'ida and other Islamist groups have also been met with scepticism. The UN says, though, that Iraq has failed to account for 1,000 tonnes of chemical agents from the war against Iran; to reveal the whereabouts of 6,500 missing chemical rockets; to produce evidence it has destroyed 8,500 litres of anthrax; and to account for 380 rocket engines smuggled into Iraq with chemicals used for missile propellants and control systems.

Intelligence reports, and some Iraqi defectors, have maintained that incriminating material and documents relating to weapons of mass destruction have been buried in remote parts of the country and have also been hidden in a variety of locations including homes of officials and scientists, as well as mosques. There have also been claims that chemical and biological products have been smuggled into Syria.


TOPICS: Front Page News
KEYWORDS: 200211; 200302; 20030219; 20031018; alnashiri; alqaeda; armssmuggling; blix; bokastar; cristi; egypt; hansblix; indianocean; interdiction; iraq; iraqiwmd; jordan; maritimesecurity; mysteryships; navy; nova; portsaid; portsecurity; radiosilence; sara; seaportsecurity; ships; syria; tonga; twillinger; warlist; wmd; wmdships; yemen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 221-222 next last
To: StriperSniper
Geez, it sounds like the Krauts should be under surveillance too!
61 posted on 02/18/2003 5:28:40 PM PST by ItisaReligionofPeace ((the original))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
"And as the article said, if we sank them, they may contaminate the oceans, killing all life, and spreading disease, which may spread to humans."

***DRAMAQUEEN ALERT***

62 posted on 02/18/2003 5:29:39 PM PST by VaBthang4 (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: bert
???? what port??? this report smells bad to me.

Perhaps Cairo. Then the report goes on to say -

"The ships are thought to have set sail from a country other than Iraq to avoid running the gauntlet of Western naval vessels patrolling the Gulf. Defence experts believe that, if they are carrying weapons of mass destruction, these could have been smuggled out through Syria or Jordan."

63 posted on 02/18/2003 5:30:16 PM PST by HAL9000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: friendly
More like a job for Austin Powers and Foxy Cleopatra-he's smashing baby-yeah!
64 posted on 02/18/2003 5:30:22 PM PST by mrmargaritaville
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Robert_Paulson2
You think these countries don't know we track them? Please.
65 posted on 02/18/2003 5:30:35 PM PST by ItisaReligionofPeace ((the original))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: mountaineer

66 posted on 02/18/2003 5:30:40 PM PST by Gamecock (You take your Germany, France and Spain, roll them all together and it wouldn't give us room to park)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: glock rocks
Might this cause tidal waves?
67 posted on 02/18/2003 5:31:28 PM PST by Domestic Church (AMDG)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Archangelsk
Exactly how do you know that we didn't pick it up being loaded in the sea? For all you know, we have people working in the factories making the stuff. Remember this isn't a CIA report, it's a newspaper article.
68 posted on 02/18/2003 5:32:09 PM PST by ItisaReligionofPeace ((the original))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: ItisaReligionofPeace
We know that they know that we know.
69 posted on 02/18/2003 5:33:08 PM PST by jerseygirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: TheHound
You are right about the oceans, hound. This is a calculated news release, designed to let our enemies (and their allies) know that we are watching their every move.

In the early 90's, the catch phrase was "We own the night" because of our superior night vision technology. Now, with superior satellite optics, we own the knowledge of everything that moves. (...and everything that doesn't.)

I want to know more about these goddamned ships, and I want the US media to get on it, now.

70 posted on 02/18/2003 5:34:13 PM PST by Semper911 (I used to have another tagline. This is my new one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: jerseygirl
"We know that they know that we know."

That's just what they want you to think.

71 posted on 02/18/2003 5:34:41 PM PST by Fabozz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: knak
If this isn't a job for our new 2 billion watt cruise missles, I don't know what is. They couldn't dump much overboard without electricity, 'specially at night.
72 posted on 02/18/2003 5:35:37 PM PST by Solamente
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knak
If the ship was laden with Iraqi banned weapons how did it get past the patrolled sea embargo against that country?
73 posted on 02/18/2003 5:36:56 PM PST by Int
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Domestic Church
just temporary ones.

i guess we could just be happy they don't port in long beach.

or steam into the hudson.
74 posted on 02/18/2003 5:37:47 PM PST by glock rocks (honest. i took the meds. really. i'm feeling better already.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Fabozz
Actually, its what they think they want you to think you know but they don't know we know... as far as they know we could know, but they don't really know what we know. I know that's how we'd want it, knowing disinformation as I know it...or, how I want you to think I know it.
75 posted on 02/18/2003 5:38:47 PM PST by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
And as the article said, if we sank them, they may contaminate the oceans, killing all life, and spreading disease, which may spread to humans.

It would cause nothing but local effects, and unless slowly leaking, not for long. Think about the billions of gallons of nasty stuff that has already been dumped in the oceans as far as chemical. Bio, unless fish can catch Smallpox and Ebola then give it to me when I eat them, no problem. And I think there are already multiple nukes that are down there now.

If it can be captured without too much risk to our guys, go for it, or sink them.

(Besides, I'd like to catch a two-headed fish with only three legs ;-)

76 posted on 02/18/2003 5:39:17 PM PST by StriperSniper (Frogs are for gigging)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Domestic Church
Might this cause tidal waves?

The energy of every nuke in the world combined is trivial compared to the energy of your average tsunami-causing earthquake or volcanic collapse.

So no, you can't cause a tsunami with nukes, unless you happened to be RIGHT NEXT to where it went off, and you have plenty of other problems to worry about then. You can't create a noticeable wave over hundreds of miles.

77 posted on 02/18/2003 5:39:55 PM PST by John H K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Principled
time for me to crack a beer...
78 posted on 02/18/2003 5:39:59 PM PST by jerseygirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: bkwells
Need to know Ping
79 posted on 02/18/2003 5:40:30 PM PST by snippy_about_it ( Pray for our troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: piasa
Thanks for posting that, piasa! I knew I'd seen it somewhere today!
80 posted on 02/18/2003 5:41:05 PM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 221-222 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson