It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S sinks N.Korean ship on its way to Iran!

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Let me lay out a scenario for you all....

A nuke goes off in the U.S. and in the aftermath it is proven that the Uranium was enriched in N. Korea. (which can be done)

Then W says the Iranians bought it from N. Korea and nuked us, and now we are going to attack Iran with Nuclear weapons.

So this makes their flase flag event very easy, because I'm sure that they secured any enriched Uranium from a N. K. freighter that they sank.

So we build an a-bomb out of it, and nuke ourselves blaming Iran. Just like 9/11 only instead of bin laden we blame Iran.

I have been saying for a long time that in order for us to go to Iran, they will need 9/11 #2.

This is really, really scary.




posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 01:25 PM
link   

by johnlear:
I'll bet the UAE, particularly Dubai and Sharjah are going to be tinkled pink over this.
I agree especially since some of the bordering cities distill sea water from Gulf water for drinking water!



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Nice tinfoil Downtown, that is certainly one of the very few circumstances under which i would entertain this story having any truth to it.

The thing is, I actually think that capturing the cargo would be more beneficial than a false flag op.

Not only that, but a torpedo wouldn't be the weapon of choice for getting rid of the evidence. One of these days a salvage team would put the peices together, literally and figuratively.

It would be just as easy, and more believable, to use demolitions on the ship and if it ever came up in the future say that the ship was scuttled by the crew during a top secret military op intended to capture it for legitimate security reasons.


Also, there would be no linking the bomb to Iran if it was stolen covertly on its way to Iran. We stole it on the way to Iran, but we can't say that, so there would be no evidence bringing Iran into the picture. It would be all North Korea, and we don't want to start a fight with them because they can kill tens of thousands of US troops and cause a global economic crisis with the push of a button.

So in that sense, the conclusion you draw is a bit non-sequitur. I still think it was good conspiracy-theorist thinking for the most part. I like a mind that rubs things together like that.



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 01:34 PM
link   
but what if the vessel did NOT contain uranium; a genuine steel totin' boat on its way to deliver cheap steel.

...and debka is a tool of The Order

...and indeed French submarines really did sink it; a couple of international sailors died.

And now the underground community is considering the rumor/possibility that weapons grade uranium was on its way to Iran and the US/UN saved the world.

That's heavy. Heavy like 9/11 heavy.

Psyops to turn the underground.

Who can confirm seeing this on the BBC back on the 14th?

Does this count as an escalating waco-type event?


What is real?
How many people are being deceived?
Which side is the deception?
Am I among the decieved?

When you go here:

www.securenet.bc.ca...

What's with this:



©2007 ACG-CIS with additional information from The Lekarev Report; DebkaFile, Jane's Defense Weekly, Fox News


What has Fox News said about this? I can't find a thing. Or should I ask...

What is Fox News about pretend they had already said, about this?

did I just say that? you guys have seen outfoxed right?

paradox atop paradox

There is so much bs out there these day its hard to make out the buckwheat.

I am,

Sri Oracle



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Originally posted by Nerevar




The real issue is that Iran is still trying to become the first Arab state to have nuclear deterrence and it is getting closer every day....i do feel that this will dramatically change the balance of power, and be a major worry for the stability of the Middle East. Quite simply it cannot be allowed to happen.




I respectfullly disagree. Iran with nuclear deterences (read weapons) would be a nice counter to Israels continued offensive attacks and threatened offensive attacks and threats on her neighbors and destabilization of the middle east.

The only difference I see here is that Israel stole her nuclear technology and plutonium from the U.S. and France. Iran is actually developing the technology on her own.



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 01:57 PM
link   
With all due respect John, I don't think that at this point in history- as we are trying (albeit in a slow and clumsy manner) to establish credible international law- to rely on two groups who hate eachother to unilaterally deter one another.

edit to add: I typoed earlier. I'm against unilateralism

In a more perfect world, the United States would put Israel on the bargaining table and have a nice long talk with Russia and China- we'll back down from our unwavering support of Israel and help put them in check, if they will do likewise with respect to Iran. If the permanent members of the security council would agree not to use their vetoes for selfish ends in this situation, and instead compromise, the UN could objectively apply international law to both sides and achieve a more stable situation that deterence could.

Of course in reality, that's just not going to happen with a neoconservative in office. An administration that thinks strictly in terms of mutual hostility between East and West will never be willing to give up a strong proxy or to concede the security of a major fuel supplier to the other side, so I do understand your point.

I'm just saying that if we were to view it in terms of ethical imperatives and not just strategic ones, Iranian nukes would not be the answer.

[edit on 28-7-2007 by The Vagabond]



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 02:17 PM
link   
@downtown436

I agree. And nobody can prove they have sunk ships with nuclar material before, because they are 2000m below sea surface. But they will use these stories to prove that they have destroyed ships already in the past.

Scary.

[edit on 28-7-2007 by Terrapop]



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Sri Oracle, awsome follow up man.

So whats the verdict,you guys think it was really S.Korean ships with steal?
Or N.Korean ships with nuclear materials hrmmm

The reason they did'nt board the ship was because they didnt want to risk contamination to our soldiers,wich makes sense i guess.

But if this is somehow proven it would back up the white house claims that Iran wants nuclear weapons,so one would think the propaganda machine would be hard at work cranking this story out to us.

Or maybe they would'nt be telling us because the contamination of the water would cause the world to freak out on us.



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 02:53 PM
link   
I'm thinking that some of you didn't read the full article so here is what i'm thinking could have happened.

Intel came in that showed this ship had radioactice material on it, this is something that the US is capable of finding out.

They checked the records of what it should be hauling and they don't match up.

It was getting close to an area patrolled by the Iranian Navy so a decision had to be made.

They sunk the ship.

They also said that a salvage operation was underway. I don't think some of you read that part.

So what can happen if this is all true?

They have a ship from North Korea that was heading for Iran full of weapons grade uranium. They sunk it and recovered the radioactive materials. They inspected the materials and can prove that they are from DPRK even though it was on a DPRK vessel.

Can you imagine what would happen? The Vagabond said it best and GW's rating would skyrocket. Other countries would have nothing to say against sanctions but an armed response should only happen if the DPRK and Iran fail to own up to this illegal arms movement.

Sometimes intel gets out that nobody would believe since it seems so outrageous and perfect for many conspiricy theorists. That alone makes it seem more real to me since nothing happens today without some sort of planning behind it.

Maybe this ship was allowed to make it this close to Iran to make a point and not give anyone the benefit of the doubt for it's intended port. It makes sense to me if you remember how things have to be in place or put in place for a big operation to take place.



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Perhaps these are the 2 ships that the Debka article refers to.
Maybe these links can provide a little more info and help us figure out who's foolin' who.

The Orchid Sun has already been mentioned in this thread.

Japanese and Pakistani Ships Assist Distressed Vessel in Gulf of Oman
July 12, 2007 - U.S. Naval Forces Central Command/U.S. 5th Fleet Public Affairs

French Ship Dupleix and USNS Kanawha Assist Merchant Vessel in Arabian Sea
June 28, 2007 - U.S. Naval Forces Central Command/U.S. 5th Fleet Public Affairs



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   
I don't think that concern for our troops is a big motive for anything that our government does.

Engineers in Desert Storm blew up an Iraqi bunker complex at kamisiyah that it turned out contained chemical agents, and the government basically said "whoopsie" and washed its hands of the matter.

There is some reason to believe troops were gassed at Al Jubayl before that- the majority of members surveyed several years after the fact were experiencing common symptoms of gulf war syndrome- nothing for them either.

Never even mind what's going on in Iraq today, or that when I was at the school of infantry a friend of mine was allowed to drown while being forced to take the screening for the recon indoc, which was supposed to be voluntary.

I don't mean to laugh but concern for our troops... that's a riot.



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Originally posted by The Vagabond


I'm just saying that if we were to view it in terms of ethical imperatives and not just strategic ones, Iranian nukes would not be the answer.



A very perceptive summary Vagabond. However there are other options. Since Israel seems to be the significant minority in the Middle East perhaps we could offer them a similar size plot of land near Crawford, Texas. I am sure that many good deals could be worked out for them at Walmart and other stores; they would continue to receive our yearly donation of 15 billion dollars and best of all they could drill for their own oil and water instead of having to steal it from Iraq and Turkey.

That way Iran could nuke her neighbors to her hearts content, Iraq could continue to blow themselves up and Israel would be safe in the U.S. without us having to spend 90% of our defense budget defending her.

We could call the plot of land in Texas, "The New Jerusalem."



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Some really excellent posts here. My two cents--at this point, Bush would never miss a chance of displaying actual WMD or their components, and asserting that they were at the bottom of the sea with no physical evidence simply wouldn't do. The administration has long ago expended its credibility in that arena. The last thing he needs is everybody thinking he's making up more aluminum tube evidence to bolster his decrepit foreign policy. This is where public poll numbers about the president come into play.

JL, I'm right with you.


[edit on 7/28/2007 by yuefo]



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   
This does not sound right at all.


It took over 2 weeks for the news to actually emerge...

North Korea wouldn't be in the habit of registering nuclear material for transit to Iran. So how would the US know what was in the hold? They sure as hell didn't board the vessel.

The sinking of the ship is just perfect. It's pretty damned hard to confirm if there were nuclear materials or not in the hold, if that hold sits on the bottom of the sea.



This news is planted. That ship was NOT carrying nuclear materials.
The US Intelligence has planted this information in an attempt to provoke a conflict between both Iran and North Korea.

This makes me sick.



I say PROVE IT. Get an independent investigation to inspect the wreckage. We require PROOF that the ship was carrying Nuclear material. And I would also demand that the Intelligence service hands over the intelligence data that shows how they came to believe there was nuclear material in that ship in the first place.

More war mongering from the Bush administration.



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   
I'm lost,i can't decide if i want to believe the south korean version or the north heh.Wich way are you guys leaning?

I mean i know for a fact the world would not be happy that we just sink a ship that had radioactive materials abord.Now the radioactive material would be chilling in the water.Hrmm so wich one is bs?

For some reason it makes sense that this could happen.I mean N.Korea really does have a surplus in nuclear material now since they "closed" their nuclear program.And surely there is no doubt Iran would buy it and their is no doubt that N.Korea is broke as a joke.

Go read the article poster above me,they used a aircraft to measure radiation lvls.

[edit on 28-7-2007 by Project_Silo]



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Project_Silo
Go read the article poster above me,they used a aircraft to measure radiation lvls.


Hanging a geiger counter from a plane cannot tell you that Iran was willing to pay over 500 million for the materials on board. Nor does it actually tell you what the ship is carrying, or in what quantity.

They never boarded the ship, and I seriously doubt the North Korean government picked up the phone and said "hey yanks, guess what we're shipping to Iran... and guess what they're paying for it!"

If the US had in fact received information of what was in that ship, wouldn't you think they'd have intercepted it WAY before it was too late?
Begging your pardon, but, that's allot of damn water that ship covered with the US doing nothing about it.



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 04:17 PM
link   
You asked how the US could tell it was nuclear materials and i answered.it had nothing to do with all the other stuff you just threw in there,but those are easily answered as intelligence programs would get you such information.

And for the answer to why they waited so long,,umm you cant just go blowing every random ship up.You have to let it go for a while so you can see where it is going,even though we have good intelligence programs as we all know they mess up at times.Last thing we need is to blow up a random ship.

That being said i still don't know if this story is true but here the global incident report with a few websites on it.
www.globalincidentmap.com...



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
With all due respect John, I think that at this point in history- as we are trying (albeit in a slow and clumsy manner) to establish credible international law- to rely on two groups who hate eachother to unilaterally deter one another.


You mean like the U.S and the U.S.S.R? Give me a break.



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 04:32 PM
link   
What sink a freighter with a US sub? Why?

Did it have guns?

Were they shooting back?


Why not just take the ship?


If they knew it had that cargo why not just use US might to board the ship and show the world what was on it.


Don't make sense.



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Ok vagabond i see your point, but I think that if indeed a NK ship was sunk with HEU on board, what is to say that they couldn't use that as evidence that NK was shipping HEU to Iran, so Iran must have actually received some of it.

So 9/11-2 happens, in the above scenario, and then the conspirators are like "looky here we sank an NK ship with an HEU cargo bound for Iran on July 12, so we know they were doing it, and a shipment must have made it".......



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join