Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Of British Conspiracies and Channel Pirates

Recently, a Russian transport, the Artic Sea, carrying about $3 million in timber, having left Kalingrad and heading for Algeria, was hijacked near England in the English Channel, an act of piracy on the not so high seas of English territorial waters. The Russian navy pulled out all the stops and sent out a full squadron to locate the ship, which was finally caught, along with the pirates off of the coast of Africa.

These are the proven facts, as we now know.

Thus, the English conspiracies, which are what passes for the mass media of modern not so jolly England: lies, conjectures and miss directions. The theory now goes, as described by the once reputable Times of London, that the ship was actually carrying S-300 anti missile systems to Iran and was hijacked by Israeli special forces and in an effort to allow Russia to save face, now that the weapons have been presumably destroyed by tossing them into the sea, they allowed themselves to be captured and the ship returned.

Of course, outside the fact that both Russia and Israel are absolutely denying this...oh but what else would you expect them to do? Or so goes that same mental case of the conspiracy theory.

Now, this could possibly be one heck of a novel except for one not so small plot hole: geography and it is a bitch. Why, pray tell, would Russia send weapons systems on a small transport all the way around northern, western and southern Europe to get to Iran...of course the ship was stopping in Algeria so it would either have had to land transport through a dozen other nations or go on through to the Persian Gulf, when it can either fly them in 2 hours or ship them in 1 day across the Caspian Sea to northern Iran? No one would be the wiser either.

Why, especially after the blunder in Georgia, would Israel sabotage its relations with Russia, its second biggest trade partner, primary source of gas and oil and tourist dollars as well as the Russian Orthodox Church being the biggest single land owner, when it has fewer to no allies left in Europe and the pro-Islamic Obama the First, of America is leaving them in the dark? Do not say to me because Iran would otherwise attack, they never will. If they were so hell bent on self destruction, they could have easily covered the Jewish state in chemical and biological weapons 15 years ago.

So why this "theory"?

The theory is simple trick of the hand, a not so subtle illusion for the less educated, to draw away from two very important facts: 1. England is full of Islamic radicals, one's whose ancestors for thousands of years practiced piracy and 2. the ship was hijacked off of the British coast in the Channel.

What this shows us is that the failing state of England, the UK can no longer control its own territorial waters, much less its radical citizens (note a 200 person dust up between English Nazis and Islamic Nazis last week in Birmingham, the second such dust up in one month)no matter how much of a police state it is willing to become. This radical over reaction by the British press says more about the state of collapse in England than about the ME power relations.

Oh and as for the overwhelming Russian force sent after the ship? What better way to tell rats that they will pay than to drop a hydrogen bomb to kill one batch? Russia has to act with absolute resolve and force to keep the Islamics afraid of it and remind them who still not only has force but is quite willing to use it.


halibut said...

Hold your horses Stan, I first saw this story in an Indian paper citing a Russin press source:

Though your analysis is quite sound.

halibut said...

The Birmingham riots were quite interesting. Instigated by a new bunch called the English Defence League. No idea where they came from or who sponsors them.

Perhaps just social spasm as the nation slowly decends into a nihilist police state.