Arms Seized By Thailand Were Iran-bound

[kenallday]

Because they have under ground Development sites, Also the British have confirmed this to be true , They are not far from producing a mechanism to detonate one , also they have carried out a test fireing of a home made rocket, capable of carrying a nuclear warhead ,and reaching Israel.

The British confirmed weapons of mass destruction in Irak too

nothing sure yet and in the meantime a lot of agencys have had time enough to set up a story.

Tony Blair is a lying scrote who should be tried for War Crimes

[tw25rw]

for the rest well why the hel_l would the plane go around the globe to get to iran....isnt it easy to fly directly from korea to Iran. Or am i too dumb

They had more reason to hide their tracks and disguise the nature of their cargo than to fly the shortest route.

[moskito]

I was only pulling your leg mossieman -= no need to bother sufing wikipedia for repostes.

As to Europe I was talking about current EU countries at the time and included Russia into the toss - no need to be brilliant at history, its pretty current, I lived it, I watched the news and read the papers like everyone else. Seen as you like surfing facts, I'm sure you can bring your history knowledge up to date with a little work

so sorry wolfi but I did my homework and always try to get informations from independent places not only from the regular mass media like you obviously do.

You havnt answered the question yet. Name countrys and dont say EU. Germany and France are the strongest EU members and refused to START A WAR against another country just for OIL and the request of EXXON Mobile. So it seems may be you read the wrong newspapers and see the wrong news. Change from FOX to Al Jazeera for example and the world looks

imidiately different (and I didnt say that Al Jazeera is not influencing their watchers too)

merry christmas

[LaoPo]

for the rest well why the hel_l would the plane go around the globe to get to iran....isnt it easy to fly directly from korea to Iran. Or am i too dumb

They had more reason to hide their tracks and disguise the nature of their cargo than to fly the shortest route.

There is no shortest route.

LaoPo

[moskito]

I wouldn't know if you're dumb but here's a map of Asia (and Iran doesn't even fit into that map..... to show the distances) and maybe you can tell us where the plane would have refueled, flying directly from Korea to Iran...?

Hi LaoPo,

its not possible to fly directly from Korea to anywhere more than 3500km away with that aircraft. The plane was an russian AN 12 and has an operating range of 3600km only.

Funny thing is it can load (normally) just 22tons of cargo, so it makes me wonder how they found 35-40 tons of weapons.

[LaoPo]

I wouldn't know if you're dumb but here's a map of Asia (and Iran doesn't even fit into that map..... to show the distances) and maybe you can tell us where the plane would have refueled, flying directly from Korea to Iran...?

Hi LaoPo,

its not possible to fly directly from Korea to anywhere more than 3500km away with that aircraft. The plane was an russian AN 12 and has an operating range of 3600km only.

Funny thing is it can load (normally) just 22tons of cargo, so it makes me wonder how they found 35-40 tons of weapons.

AN-12 ?

I thought the plane was an Ilyushin II-76* and those can fly up to 4200 km if I'm correct, some even further depending on the type.

But that's why I was asking member Aras.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-76

LaoPo

[sunsamourai]

MCOT -NEWS

Thai Crime Suppression Division suspects Thais involved in planeload of weapons from NKorea seized in Bangkok; to question customs, ground officials

-- TNA 2009/12/21

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

While I will let most TV members debate on whether Iran's got nuclear capacities or not, am I the only one to think that it could well be a set-up to discredit NKorea + Iran, while bringing 'face' to Thailand ?

That wouldn't surprise me the least....

[moskito]

AN-12 ?

I thought the plane was an Ilyushin II-76* and those can fly up to 4200 km if I'm correct, some even further depending on the type.

But that's why I was asking member Aras.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-76

LaoPo

ok, sry for answering sir

just found a photo in the old thread about the plane, looks like an Il 76 but the newspapers wrote nothing about the type of plane. One member wrote before AN 12, so i thought he got the info....the pic was some pages later.

old thread

[DegenFarang]

Reminds me of the movie Lord of War - which is said to have been based on real events. If arms trafficking works anything like that movie suggests - these weapons were likely being sent by an entreprenuer/arms trafficker, not a government. And the end target was likely somebody currently involved in military conflict or preparing for military conflict, without the capability of producing these types of weapons themselves. The endless maze of offshore corporations, leasing deals and shell companies lends credence to this angle.

Certainly plausible that these weapons were headed for the Taliban. The are flush with heroin profits and preparing for a huge US troop surge in the coming months.

[orangezeke]

I said they are on the path. I didn't say tomorrow. They are obviously working on it and they obviously want to do this as soon as they can. Iran's government isn't exactly a desirable one, so it is no wonder that not only Israel and the US, but also the Arab middle east, Russia, China, and Europe do not want them to succeed. I realize some people oppose Israel and the US so much that they do wish the Iran government success. However, the Arab middle east who also oppose Israel are not so irrational.

don't say 'obviously' like it is a stated fact. the oxford research group, comments:

"they don't currently have enough centrifuges working - so far as we know - to produce significant amounts of highly-enriched uranium or even enriched uranium. they would need a lot more."

the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) believes it would take Iran at least a decade to produce enough high-grade uranium to make a single nuclear weapon.

[LaoPo]

just found a photo in the old thread about the plane, looks like an Il 76 but the newspapers wrote nothing about the type of plane. One member wrote before AN 12, so i thought he got the info....the pic was some pages later.

old thread

The Il-76 was mentioned for the first time in this message/article in that old thread, posted by George:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/N-Korea-Airc...84#entry3198984

Before that, member Pseacraft mentioned a possible AN-12 and later he talked about the possibility of the plane to be an Il-76.

That's all; I was just questioning why you mentioned an AN-12.

LaoPo

[wolf5370]

I was only pulling your leg mossieman -= no need to bother sufing wikipedia for repostes.

As to Europe I was talking about current EU countries at the time and included Russia into the toss - no need to be brilliant at history, its pretty current, I lived it, I watched the news and read the papers like everyone else. Seen as you like surfing facts, I'm sure you can bring your history knowledge up to date with a little work

so sorry wolfi but I did my homework and always try to get informations from independent places not only from the regular mass media like you obviously do.

You havnt answered the question yet. Name countrys and dont say EU. Germany and France are the strongest EU members and refused to START A WAR against another country just for OIL and the request of EXXON Mobile. So it seems may be you read the wrong newspapers and see the wrong news. Change from FOX to Al Jazeera for example and the world looks

imidiately different (and I didnt say that Al Jazeera is not influencing their watchers too)

merry christmas

Who mentioned starting a war? We were talking about who believed there to be weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - there were UN sittings about it and EU meetings about it - the differences were to do with the strategies to employ (i.e. whether to go to war, try new sanctions, add another useless UN condemnantion to the pile and so on). There was much talk at the time about countries in Europe having large contracts with Mr Hussein's government to build nucleaur power stations, large chemical supply contracts and so on (as I said all the countries involved - or not - had agendas which lead to their stance - oil being just one of them) - and no I'm not going to bite and list them, its in the PD, so look it up yourself (or ask your 'independent' sources that seem to know more than the world's intelligence agencies and news agencies).

PS: Being a Brit, I have never watched Fox News - I did (and do) watch Al Jazera (as I had a large movable satelite dish I used to watch the international version and sometimes the Arabic version too - as it had briefings in English from time to time and clips not shown elsewhere - amazing how different they are! - I also watched Sky News, BBC World and terrestial BBC and CNN - I was a news junky at the time for reasons that I do not want to raise and flipped between stations as they went to sport or entertainment news to which I couldn't give a stuff)

...and Merry Christmas to you too.

Edited December 22, 2009 by wolf5370

[tw25rw]

Reminds me of the movie Lord of War - which is said to have been based on real events. If arms trafficking works anything like that movie suggests - these weapons were likely being sent by an entreprenuer/arms trafficker, not a government. And the end target was likely somebody currently involved in military conflict or preparing for military conflict, without the capability of producing these types of weapons themselves. The endless maze of offshore corporations, leasing deals and shell companies lends credence to this angle.

In North Korea, the only entrepreneurs are the ruling family and a select few loyal people close to them. It's not somewhere that private enterprise can flourish.

[pampal]

Iran was not on the flight plan of this cargo plane, but it is a nice conspiracy theory

[orangezeke]

I was only pulling your leg mossieman -= no need to bother sufing wikipedia for repostes.

As to Europe I was talking about current EU countries at the time and included Russia into the toss - no need to be brilliant at history, its pretty current, I lived it, I watched the news and read the papers like everyone else. Seen as you like surfing facts, I'm sure you can bring your history knowledge up to date with a little work

so sorry wolfi but I did my homework and always try to get informations from independent places not only from the regular mass media like you obviously do.

You havnt answered the question yet. Name countrys and dont say EU. Germany and France are the strongest EU members and refused to START A WAR against another country just for OIL and the request of EXXON Mobile. So it seems may be you read the wrong newspapers and see the wrong news. Change from FOX to Al Jazeera for example and the world looks

imidiately different (and I didnt say that Al Jazeera is not influencing their watchers too)

merry christmas

Who mentioned starting a war? We were talking about who believed there to be weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - there were UN sittings about it and EU meetings about it - the differences were to do with the strategies to employ (i.e. whether to go to war, try new sanctions, add another useless UN condemnantion to the pile and so on). There was much talk at the time about countries in Europe having large contracts with Mr Hussein's government to build nucleaur power stations, large chemical supply contracts and so on (as I said all the countries involved - or not - had agendas which lead to their stance - oil being just one of them) - and no I'm not going to bite and list them, its in the PD, so look it up yourself (or ask your 'independent' sources that seem to know more than the world's intelligence agencies and news agencies).

PS: Being a Brit, I have never watched Fox News - I did (and do) watch Al Jazera (as I had a large movable satelite dish I used to watch the international version and sometimes the Arabic version too - as it had briefings in English from time to time and clips not shown elsewhere - amazing how different they are! - I also watched Sky News, BBC World and terrestial BBC and CNN - I was a news junky at the time for reasons that I do not want to raise and flipped between stations as they went to sport or entertainment news to which I couldn't give a stuff)

...and Merry Christmas to you too.

nobody actually 'believed there to be weapons of mass destruction in Iraq'. certainly not anyone making decisions about the situation. former chief UN weapons inspector, scott ritter, put the issue in perspective:

“As of December 1998, both the U.S. and Britain knew there was no ‘smoking gun’ in Iraq that could prove that Saddam's government was retaining or reconstituting a WMD capability. Nothing transpired between that time and when the decision was made in 2002 to invade Iraq that fundamentally altered that basic picture.