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.

 

Was Russia's 'Artic Sea' Carrying Missles to Iran?

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Was Russia


news.yahoo.com

The highest-ranking official to put forward this version of events is the European Union's rapporteur on piracy and a former commander of the Estonian armed forces, Admiral Tarmo Kouts. In an interview with TIME, he says only a shipment of missiles could account for Russia's bizarre behavior throughout the monthlong saga. "There is the idea that there were missiles aboard, and one can't explain this situation in any other way," he says. "As a sailor with years of experience, I can tell you that the official versions are not realistic."


Kouts says an Israeli interception of the car
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 31-8-2009 by djvexd]




posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   
So experts think Israel may have interdicted the cargo as a bargaining chip against Russia's weapons being dealt to Iran. Definatley very dangerous situation this would be if this turns out to be the case. We need to keep an eye on this. Israel has an itchy trigger finger and we all know how nasty Mossad can be.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
"Russia's bizarre behavior"? Russia hunted down their missing crew aboard a missing foreign vessel and then arrested the people who hijacked them. This is bizarre? I think it's stranger that rumors keep pouring out about this ship containing missiles, even though is totally possible but there is no proof to even base these rumors.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   
When they pull ships from the Black Sea Fleet as well as mobilize a good chunk of thier naval assets to search for 1 vessel carrying timber that happens to be crewed by a russian crew, I find that a tad bit overkill. So yes, "bizarre behavior".



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
It's called counter-piracy. What else were they supposed to use to save their men? Russia has Navy ships patrolling the coast of Somalia to protect their ships and men, along with other international navy escorts; is this bizarre behavior too?



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


No not at all, however when you mobilize ships out of the Black Sea fleet and numerous "other" vessels, including HK subs and destroyers to track 1 ship that isn't even a Russian flagged ship, just because it has russian sailors on board, once again it is WAY OVERKILL. It is just like the U.S. pulling an entire carrier battlegroup to deal with the Maersk Alabama.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Maybe it was good experience for the Russian navy to mobilize? Every other time they move the Western media claims they are patrolling in Cold War style tactics.

Point is Russia cares about it's men, both the crew of the ship and its soldiers. Russia would never let some wannabe pirates hijack their men without consequence. I'm not saying that the ship didn't contain weapons, but these aren't nukes just cruise missiles, and it's nobody's business if Russia sells them or how they ship them. In fact if this story is true, then it is just proof of how Russia needs to secretly ship their arms to avoid problems from overzealous powers like Israel.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   
So Russia cares about it's men, yet incarcerates them after freeing them? Just so "happens" to find the culprits at the same time? Russia doesn't seem to care when it's journalists and political dissidents seem to mysteriously die or vanish. I'm not saying the US is any better but seriously, you can't believe that Russia is going to commit a good portion of its assets to track and rescue a crew carrying timber, in a man-intensive search. They have surveillance assets that are on par with ours and can find and follow anything they want. They don't need to use an onsite sweep with assets to find a timber -hauler, unless something was onboard they either wanted or were afraid of losing. And to add, that who's business is it if Russia supplies weapons to Iran? The world community's.They are just as complicit in the ratcheting up of tensions in the ME as the US is and they get no free pass from me in that sense, as does the US.

[edit on 31-8-2009 by djvexd]



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   
I don't think it's unreasonable to at least regard this whole affair as suspicious. Does that mean that there had to be an interception of cargo by Israeli operatives or missiles on board? No, and without strong evidence to suggest that this was the case, I don't personally feel any compulsion to jump to that conclusion. Limiting myself to what we've been told, if we are to believe that of course, what we can say is that:

1) A ship ostensibly carrying timber departed for Algeria.
2) Its crew sent no distress signal, however its transponder was deactivated and it disappeared.
3) Russia reacted to this with abundant military and tracking capabilities, arguably more than they would have felt necessary for a ship carrying some timber.
4) Russia said it knew the coordinates of the vessel throughout this episode, however it took their extensive resources and capabilities five days to locate it.
5) Upon the vessel's recovery, its crew and those allegedly responsible for its hijacking were detained and questioned extensively.

We can't really establish much based on this limited information. All we can do is speculate. The show of force does, on its face, seem somewhat excessive according to my own subjective interpretation, but we may be neglecting the subjective political importance of this to Russia, or perhaps outside political pressure from Europe to bring to bear a show of force in the face of what appeared at the time to be piracy having spread to Europe, etc. These factors could account, in theory, for the amount of force sent in search of the missing ship. We just don't know. As for the crew and hijackers' detention, was this a debriefing? A cover-up? Or simply an ongoing interrogation of pirates and perhaps a crew Russia regarded with suspicion of collusion? Again, we just don't know.

I'm not ready to make the leap and say that there were weapons on board. It's interesting and - at least to me - somewhat suspicious, nonetheless. It's kind of like 9-11 Something isn't right, and it seems highly dubious and suspicious, but I'm not ready to say a missile hit the Pentagon instead of a plane, etc. I just don't know. Further information is required.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 07:32 AM
link   
What I find is strange......Aren't there some people in Algeria waiting on timber? Was there ever a docking scheduled for its arrival?



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   
oh and russia needs to send that load of timber there while have neutral observers watch the offloading of the ship. Seeing how much timber is there and how many missiles.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by carolina1737
 


The ship and the 'timber' have been seized... That will be the most heavily guarded wood in the world now and they will be going over every inch of that old tub with a fine tooth comb and probably gas axe's and angle grinders.

And Dimitri - Russia's response was seriously out of proportion given the situation... And with that much hardware out there in a busy shipping area it should not of taken them that long to locate it, and even the Russian official statement says they knew it's location all along
- defo something fishy, much more valuable ships get hijacked of Somalia and they all get the same treatment, it's sort of routine in that part of the world - The Arctic Sea got very special treatment.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 08:17 AM
link   
1) There is zero evidence to suggest that there were any missiles, mossads or any such thing involved. Only guess work and speculation. Notice the articles always have words such as 'may' 'could've' 'might' etc.
2) The ship wasn't carrying only timber, it also had a crew of 15 men. How much is their value in $?
3) The response wasn't out of proportion at all, one might argue it wasn't enough. You have to take into account that this isn't somalia, we are talking busy shipping lanes here. If you allow these pirates to get away with this then you're surely inviting others to do the same. How much value would the future pirated ships then have in $$$?
4) What's the point of shipping missiles like this when they have direct connection trough the caspian? They could easily ship trough there and never even go beyond Iran / Russia borders.
5) Why would anyone load missiles onto a ship and then send it to Finland to be loaded with timber? That doesn't make any sense, there would've been too high of risk of being discovered by Finnish customs or dock workers.

Damn I feel like repeating myself again



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


There was a lot more to it than that at the time, between cover ups, false press statements, boardings and just the overall weirdness of the situation shows that there is a lot more to this than meets the eye. Also, how does a ship get captured for ransom in EU waters? In the worlds busiest shipping lane and in close proximity to the Navies of two world powers - the UK and France.

Also, if the head of the EU's piracy division says that the Russians are covering something up.. I would listen to him before I would listen to the official story as while the Russians may have something to hide in this situation, the head of the EU's piracy division does not.

That is unless you know something that you are not telling us



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


From my perspective I don't necessarily believe missles were the cargo either. However that being said, this most definatley was not, in my mind, a simple act of piracy of a timberhauler in the EU waters. Russia's odd deployment behavior doesn't fit with normal protocol's for any nation in the same situation. As I pointed out in a earlier post, they have equivalent surveillance assets, roughly, to the U.S. without the need to pull ships from it's Black Sea flagship fleet, utilize HK subs, and essentially utilize a task force , man-intensive, search pattern. It also lends some creedence that the EU piracy chief feels something is not right with the disproportianate response. Could it have been just what it appears on it's face? A nationalistic response to an unprecendented act of piracy in busy EU shipping lanes? Sure. Is it likely that is the scenario? No. What was in that ship other than timber? I can't say, but I can say that a 2 million dollar cargo of timber and a freelance russian crew isn't worth the 10's of MILLIONS expended to rettrieve the vessel. Even the russians put a price on human lives.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Yeah but what is the normal protocol? When was the last time a western ship was hijacked and went missing from such a location?



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Well we can infer what normal protocol is for the russians by a statement they made. That they knew where the ship was at all times. Ok if they knew where it was why such a large deployment 'searching" for the vessel. They could have very easily extrapolated the general course and set forces to intercept very easily. Instead they didn't act until it was docked at port. Something doesn't click. Either thier captains and admirals are really out of practice or this actually caught them by surprise.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Maybe....

They needed it to temporarily disappear in order to remove the cargo. Instead of getting egg on their faces before a potential breaking story broke. They did the old switcharoo while it was supposedly "Missing"



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
This probably did catch them by surprise. The response will probably be a hot topic for a long time. Hard to say right now.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dermo
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 

Also, how does a ship get captured for ransom in EU waters? In the worlds busiest shipping lane and in close proximity to the Navies of two world powers - the UK and France.


Well, for one the hijackers boarded the ship while pretending to be INTERPOL agents (or whatever police organization), which I'm sure isn't too uncommon. Secondly, it was obviously an inside job, probably by elements of the Russian mafia. Whatever the ship was used for, it was in the hijacker's interests and probably had little to do with the Russian government.

And I still fail to understand why this was disproportionate response. I remember an American ship getting hijacked in Somalia and a SEAL team had to shoot and kill the hijackers. I thought that was pretty disproportionate. I know if my country, Canada, lost a ship to hijackers it would be huge news and we would pressure our government into sending our Navy in search of the ship just to rescue the crew. Do people expect Russia to just let some hijackers steal a ship and ignore the safety of the crew?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join