Skip to comments.
Iraqi 'terror ships' at sea
Associated News Media London ^
| 19/02/03
| Patrick McGowan
Posted on 02/19/2003 11:31:08 AM PST by arthur003
LONDON 19/02/03 - News and city section
Iraqi 'terror ships' at sea By Patrick McGowan, Evening Standard
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
©2003 Associated New Media
TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Free Republic; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: iraqiweapons; warlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-56 next last
1
posted on
02/19/2003 11:31:09 AM PST
by
arthur003
To: arthur003
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. F/k the environmental damage and torpedo those G/D things!
2
posted on
02/19/2003 11:35:07 AM PST
by
Mr. Mojo
To: arthur003
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. What kind of bull is this? Out in the high seas is where you want them to go off if they are to go off, right?
Scare tactics or stupid tactics?
3
posted on
02/19/2003 11:36:38 AM PST
by
Destro
(Duct and Cover...Duct and Cover...)
To: arthur003
In the SecDef news conference just aired neither Rumney nor Gen. Myers had any info on this.
4
posted on
02/19/2003 11:37:18 AM PST
by
JimVT
To: arthur003
Terror Ship ...
To: arthur003
>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 open ocean
probably isn't the best
place to hide weapons.
Even in calm seas,
rogue waves sometimes sink a ship.
And the Navy Seals,
I'm sure, can arrange
all manner of accidents,
if rogue waves don't come...
To: Mr. Mojo
Nukes would be sensed by radiation detectors.....as far as chem or bio hazards..a large explosion would incinerate anything.....most of this article is BS
7
posted on
02/19/2003 11:38:36 AM PST
by
ken5050
To: Mr. Mojo
yea. Sounds like a yank cranker story.
8
posted on
02/19/2003 11:39:11 AM PST
by
Destro
(Duct and Cover...Duct and Cover...)
To: Mr. Mojo
Drop some nukes on the damned things. At sea, the ecological damage and fall-out is non-existant.
End of story
To: ken5050
Nukes would be sensed by radiation detectors Even if they were transported in thick lead containers?
10
posted on
02/19/2003 11:39:55 AM PST
by
Mr. Mojo
To: Mr. Mojo
11
posted on
02/19/2003 11:40:35 AM PST
by
Blueflag
To: theFIRMbss
Why risk the lives of our valuable SEALs when we have such wonderful, quiet, and "deniable" submarines??
12
posted on
02/19/2003 11:40:40 AM PST
by
tracer
(/b>)
To: ken5050
Many of us are all for this war no need to scare us into it by crap stories like this which hurt the cause when exposed as a fraud down the line.
13
posted on
02/19/2003 11:40:46 AM PST
by
Destro
(Duct and Cover...Duct and Cover...)
To: ElectricStrawberry
Exactly. We used to blow up whole islands every other week in the So. Pacific in the 50's ....with serious multi-megaton H-bombs. Dropping a small tactical nuke on each of these ships would be environmentally benign by comparison.
14
posted on
02/19/2003 11:44:23 AM PST
by
Mr. Mojo
To: arthur003
Wonder if the e-bomb would work on 'em? In other words, cripple 'em, shut down all electronics onboard and perhaps give the SEALS a few minutes to storm the ship(s) before any terrorists could react and release biochemical/radiological agents and/or scuttle the ships?
To: Oldeconomybuyer
>Terror ship...
Well, this terror boat
is destroying a nation
just by sailing fast...
To: arthur003
This sounds to me like a job for The Navy Seals!They could intercept via nuclear subs and board in total darkness!!They "OWN THE NIGHT"!!!!!
To: ken5050
There is very little sea life out in the middle of the ocean along with literally hundreds of billions of gallons of seawater to dilute and disperse chemicals.
18
posted on
02/19/2003 11:58:54 AM PST
by
Blood of Tyrants
(Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave)
To: LibWhacker
Gotta get on board first.
19
posted on
02/19/2003 12:00:19 PM PST
by
Blood of Tyrants
(Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave)
To: Blood of Tyrants
Your correct, but with biologics..there's always the possibility of airborne disseminaton...so why take a chance.....immolate..
20
posted on
02/19/2003 12:02:00 PM PST
by
ken5050
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-56 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson