SEA COLLISION NEAR ENGLAND: BIZARRE ACCIDENT OR ACT OF WAR?

A few days ago, a most unusual collision occurred off the east coast of England. A cargo ship hit a fuel tanker vessel amidships and both ships were set ablaze. Both ships and their cargoes appear to be total losses. Maritime collisions periodically occur and many have causes involving weather problems, equipment malfunctions or incompetent crew actions. However, when looked at carefully this particular collision may not have been an accident.

The first link shows the extensive blaze that was ignited when the cargo ship, Solong, rammed the tanker, Stena Immaculate.The second link offers a very detailed maritime investigation of this collision. It has many facts in it the general media articles omitted. The oil tanker was stationary and was anchored in a fixed position. Despite a foggy condition, the cargo ship proceeded at a relatively high rate of speed and “T-boned” the tanker after steering straight at it. Various media sources report the tanker was, literally, “rammed” by the cargo ship. As is reported on the second link, the cargo ship “ran straight into” the anchored tanker ship.

The second link also offers a chart which, based on transponder records, shows the actions and movements of all ships in the region where the collision occurred. It also traces many recent voyages of the offending ship, the Solong, which confirms that it was very familiar with that region and its sea lanes. It also reports that due to the fog, the captain and crew of the Solong should have been carefully monitoring its radars and the collision avoidance alarms should have sounded on its bridge long before the collision occurred. Had those alarms been heeded or if the radars had been watched, this collision could easily have been avoided. The sea maps marking the position of every ship in the area show this was a maritime region with many ships –some at anchor near the tanker ship, and others in motion.

Another pertinent fact is that the tanker ship, the Stena Immaculate, was chartered to the US Defense Department, and it was hauling aviation gasoline for US military purposes. In looking at the overall body of facts, the second link observes “this seems suspicious.” I agree. Let’s ask some telling questions. Why didn’t the offending ship, the Solong, slow down in spite of the fog? Was the collision avoidance alarm on its bridge operable? If it voiced an alarm, why did the bridge crew ignore it and continue to steer straight at an anchored ship? Was it a coincidence that the offending ship managed to hit what was likely the only ship in that maritime region with a US military cargo onboard? Why did the offending ship apparently make no attempt whatsoever to avoid the anchored and motionless ship, but, rather, aimed straight at it until it rammed directly into its side? This looks like a very intentional and deliberate ramming to me.

Consider also the recent backdrop of events in northern European waters which have featured what appear to be attacks against NATO nations. A number of communications cables linking Scandinavian NATO nations with mainland European NATO nations have been cut or damaged in the Baltic Sea. The third link details these cable cuttings and offers good evidence that Russian and Chinese cargo ships of various kinds have been present on the surface at the time the cables were cut. This logically results in a conclusion that anchors were lowered and dragged on the bottom surface of the Baltic Sea to strike and damage these sea-cables between NATO nations. If these are not acts of war, they are certainly practice efforts at cutting communications between NATO nations in time of actual war. It is very noteworthy that China was cited as helping Russia in this anti-NATO action. Was China practicing this tactic for use against Taiwan? The NATO nations obviously need to have wireless atmospheric communications networks to replace the sea-cables if they are cut in the future. The fourth link even examines an incident in Alaskan waters where an undersea cable was damaged.

It is very hard sometimes to know who is really “giving the orders” on civilian merchant ships. It may be built in one nation, home-ported in another nation, crewed by sailors from a variety of nations and chartered by an additional nation for various purposes. A thorough investigation is needed. The USA is, of course, a NATO nation, and the Scandinavian and Northern European nations harmed by the severed or damaged sea-cables are all NATO nations. Do you think it can be a coincidence that all the harmed nations just happened to be NATO nations? I don’t think so.

Consider a late-breaking fact that has emerged as I am writing this blog post. The fifth link cites the activities of the rammed ship’s crew after the ramming and their need to abandon ship. One sailor said the offending ship “came out of the blue,” The sixth link and seventh link reveals the captain of the offending ship, the Solong, was a Russian as were a significant part of his ship’s crew (the rest were Filipino). The Russian captain has been arrested on suspicion of manslaughter by gross negligence (one sailor is dead). I would suggest that there need to be more charges directed at this Russian ship’s captain who drove his ship directly into an anchored ship hauling aviation gasoline to the US military. There is nothing in the known facts so far which indicates this ramming could have been accidental. The final link notes the UK authorities “find no evidence of foul play” in this matter. I suggest that the facts indicate that they must not be looking very hard yet. I hope this doesn’t turn into a cover-up.

Consider also the contents of the rammed ship with aviation gas on board for the US military. Obviously, it was intended to be delivered to US (or allied) military bases where warplanes are flown. Many media articles have reported that the USA and Israel may soon launch a pre-emptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities and a great deal of aviation gasoline would be needed to fuel all the warplanes used by the USA and Israel on such a mission. Were US and Israeli military bases in the Mideast the intended destinations for this rammed ship with the now lost cargo of aviation fuel? Could Iran or its allies–Russia and China– have arranged this ramming of an anchored ship in a “kamikaze”-style attack to prevent the aviation gas to be delivered to US or allied forces in the Mideast or elsewhere? Some media articles have opined that the aviation gas cargo was destined for England to supply US warplanes based there. I suggest that the USA has relatively few warplanes still based in the United Kingdom and the ones that are based in the UK hardly need an entire tanker load of aviation gas to supply them. It is important to ask: Where was the aviation gas on this tanker heading for? What was the ultimate destination for this vessel carrying American aviation fuel? Did Russia take an overt action to prevent or delay an American/Israeli air attack vs. Iran? The investigation should ask such questions.

I think what we are seeing is a coordinated set of actions by Russia, China and Iran to harm the Western nations against whom they are intending to act at a future time. Biblical prophecy would certainly agree this is very possible. Ezekiel 38-39 [have you noticed how often I mention this pivotal latter-day prophecy?] prophesies that a Gog-Magog alliance will attack an alliance of nations led by “Israel” at the very end of the latter-day period in which we now live. Many scholars and students of biblical prophecies accurately identify our time as the “latter days,” in which the events of Ezekiel 38-39 will occur (see Ezekiel 38:8 and 16). Many also rightly identify the Gog-Magog alliance as the nations of Russia, China, Iran, and their allies. However, only a few correctly identify the targeted alliance: latter-day “Israel” and its allies. In biblical terminology, the term “Israel” applies to the modern descendants of the ten ten tribes of Israel, whose ancestors once populated the biblical kingdom of “Israel” with its capital at Samaria. The ancient kingdom of Israel was non-Jewish. Let that sink in. The ancient Jews lived in the southern kingdom of Judah, with its capital at Jerusalem. If one does not accurately identify the modern descendants of the ten tribes of Israel, one cannot understand Ezekiel 38-39 correctly. The ten tribes of Israel are prophesied to be present among the nations in the latter days, according to Genesis 49 and Revelation 7. You will not find them in obscure little remnants of Asian tribes with a few vestigial Jewish customs because the Israelites were not Jewish at the time they went into exile from the Promised Land. One needs to look for them among the larger nations because Hosea 1, a chapter about God’s intention to soon exile the ten tribes from their kingdom in the Promised Land, states in verse 10 that even though God will exile all the ten tribes into new locations, the population of the ten tribes of Israel will be so increased after their exile that they will be too numerous to count.

I recommend two articles for further reading. Many long-time readers of my blog already know them well. They are: Are We Living in the Biblical Latter Days? and What Ezekiel 38-39 Reveal about a Future World War III. Many articles about the ten tribes of Israel are located at the “Articles” tab at my website’s homepage. My four book set and my E-book about the history of the ten tribes are very comprehensive and can be obtained at the home page of my website.

SEA COLLISION NEAR ENGLAND: BIZARRE ACCIDENT OR ACT OF WAR?

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives