Americans in Iraq Attacked W Bomb Containing Nerve Gas (WMD)

Two.

Two today.

0 Replies

Deecups36 wrote:

AQ/Ba'athists are doing everything they can to prevent it. It is currently our #1 goal.

But, it's not proof of WMD's. It's evidence there are Iraqis who remain loyal to Saddam's regime. Two very different things.

How is the use of a WMD not proof that a WMD existed? They detonated a WMD that didn't exist?

0 Replies

OK brandon, I give up.

The head of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council who was in his car wasn't the target and he wasn't killed.

You're correct and virtually all the media, cable TV, radio and print are wrong.

0 Replies

Deecups36 wrote:

AQ/Ba'athists are doing everything they can to prevent it. It is currently our #1 goal.

Finally, sofia has said something Deecups36 can agree with.

But, it's not proof of WMD's. It's evidence there are Iraqis who remain loyal to Saddam's regime. Two very different things.

A WMD is proof of WMD. There's not much wiggle room on that, even for a Democrat.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

So is the scenario that it was one of Hussein's hidden weapons, that he lied about, set off in all this chaos by people who had not received the proper training.

No Brandon there are no hidden stock piles. But you can be very certain that there is material, forgotten, misplaced, and in small quantities, lying about, and periodically over the past year it has been showing up. This is not the first time it has been found. A fact you conveniently ignore.

0 Replies

OK sofia, whatever you say.

http://www.wtkr.com/Global/story.asp?S=1873574&nav=0oa8AfMQ

Rumsfeld says it wasn't necessarily sarin

Washington-AP -- Don't jump to any conclusions just yet. That warning comes from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, after the U-S military in Iraq announced that a roadside bomb containing sarin nerve gas had exploded near a U-S military convoy.

Rumsfeld told a Washington, D-C audience that the "field test" showing the presence of sarin may not be accurate. He says more analysis needs to be done -- and that it may take some time to find out just what the chemical was.

In Baghdad, officials said the bomb was apparently left over from the Saddam era. They said two members of a military bomb squad were treated for "minor exposure" -- but that there were no serious injuries.

One official says the shell apparently contained two chemicals that are designed to combine and create sarin -- but that they didn't mix properly.

Copyright 2004 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

0 Replies

Apparently a weapon of mass destruction that killed no masses and caused no destruction.

0 Replies

Deecups36 wrote:

OK brandon, I give up.

The head of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council who was in his car wasn't the target and he wasn't killed.

You're correct and virtually all the media, cable TV, radio and print are wrong.

As I keep posting, and you keep not reading, an article talking about the murder of the head of the Governing Council, made a reference to a previous incident in which a US military convoy was attacked with a bomb containing nerve gas.

0 Replies

John Webb wrote:

Apparently a weapon of mass destruction that killed no masses and caused no destruction.

It was a nerve gas weapon. The nerve gas did little damage because it was a binary weapon and the two components did not mix. Had they mixed, it is reasonable to assume that it would have done the sort of damage that nerve gas usually does. The fact that someone used the weapon incompetently does not imply that it wouldn't have been more dangerous in hands that knew what to do with it.

0 Replies

Acquiunk wrote:

Secondly they are binary shells. That is it contains two chemicals that must be mixed to form Sarin. To mix the chemicals the shell must be fired, not exploded. This suggests that whomever set the shell as a booby trap did not know a) that it was a chemical weapon or b) how it worked.

Not entirely accurate Acquiunk, binary shells are usually fired, but if the two chemicals are mixed under the right conditions, they could form Sarin without being fired from an artillery piece.

The combining of the two chemicals is all that is important. If a Sarin shell is rigged the proper way for destruction, the two chemicals will combine properly and things will get very ugly VERY quickly.

Fedral... 15E Pershing Missile Crewman 3/9th Field Artillery, Fort Sill (Home of Artillery) 1986-1988.

A little about Sarin

0 Replies

Now that we have agreed that it was aWMD, which didn't mix properly and produce the deadly gas--

We don't know of the 'source', and other investigations have to be completed... Yadayada.

Nobody's clinking champagne glasses--but I would hope that everyone would be glad if we find unused WMDs. Emphasis on UNUSED. My problem has always been the number and amount of these deadly chemicals, and the lack of accountability for their destruction.

0 Replies

Federal, It is my understanding that the chemicals in a binary shell are separated by a membrane and it is the rotation of the shell in the rifled tube that ruptures the membrane and mixes the chemicals. How is that going to be accomplished in a shell otherwise?

0 Replies

Actually on the news today the white house said, this was not a WMD. They also said that it was likely that those that put the bomb together did not know what it contained because it was unmarked and used in a manner not consistent with the real use of sarin as a WMD.

What I keep going back to concerning saddam and WMD is if he had them why didn't he use them when he was being invaded? Was he waiting for a better opportunity or what?

To me it does not matter if there were WMD before the war, I thought there was and I was still against it because I didn't see the urgent danger for us in the United States and have thought that the Bush administration sexed up the facts to go to war and still think that. I also just plain distrusted their motives in invading Iraq. The fact that Kay and others who have been looking for WMD all this long while said that there aren't any was just an unexpected bonus.

If there are lots of WMD all over the place in Iraq, we must be terribly incompetent in looking for them all this time.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Actually on the news today the white house said, this was not a WMD. They also said that it was likely that those that put the bomb together did not know what it contained because it was unmarked and used in a manner not consistent with the real use of sarin as a WMD.

Revel do you have a link to document this?

0 Replies

Acquiunk wrote:

Federal, It is my understanding that the chemicals in a binary shell are separated by a membrane and it is the rotation of the shell in the rifled tube that ruptures the membrane and mixes the chemicals. How is that going to be accomplished in a shell otherwise?

Keep in mind, separate from the whole WMD/no WMD argument ... I am merely speaking on the weapon itself. If the proper type of charge were rigged; one of sufficient strength to rupture both of the chemical reservoirs without burning the contents up were set off on the body of the shell, the two chemicals would mix enough to produce the desired effect. This would require a skilled explosives man and someone with knowledge of the internal makeup of the shell. Either that or someone with enough experience to remove the chemicals from the shell body.(Less likely)

When we took our class in handling nuclear artillery shells, they told us that they wouldn't arm until they had received the 'shock' of firing from a tube (artillery piece) and yet a simple sledgehammer blow to the base was enough to bypass that arming lockout.

If you think that it is impossible to find a way around the safety protocols built into binary artillery shells (namely being mostly inert until mixed) then you are being naive about the state of human ingenuity.

0 Replies

How quickly they forget.

Remember when the Bush occupation force in Iraq discovered aluminum tubes in Baghdad? They jubilantly said to the world, "see, see, aluminum tubes are used in nuclear weapons, so this is the proof that Saddam had WMD's and Bush was correct!"

The GOP was beside itself. At last, thir hero, George W. Bush could be held up to the world as a teller of truth -- his claims about Saddam's WMD's were finally verified.

Never mind that aluminum tubes are used for a whole array of purposes having nothing to do with WMD's. Purposes like electrical lighting, telephone lines, heating, cooling, exhaust, industrial vacuums, and the distribution of lubricants for trucks and cars. Never mind logic and reason, the discovery of aluminum tubes in Baghdad meant they were intended for as the critical centrifuge component in nuclear bombs -- period.

Of course, as time past and it came to be known that Iraq was not in possession of yellow cake (Cheney really made a fool of himself on this one), the discovery of aluminum tubes in Baghdad quickly dropped off the radar screen. It turned out the aluminum tubes were just that: aluminum tubes.

I think what we can all conclude from this thread is the sheer desperation Bush's supporters live with each day, as the clock on their hero's tenure in the White House winds down, and all hopes of finding WMD's in Iraq grow distant.

0 Replies

Fedral wrote:

If you think that it is impossible to find a way around the safety protocols built into binary artillery shells (namely being mostly inert until mixed) then you are being naive about the state of human ingenuity.

No...I think your right on the money with that.

0 Replies

Acquiunk

Actually it was a whitehouse correspondent who said that it was not a WMD. (and actually she said "not a WMD attack", not just WMD) I thought she said the white house said that. Anyway, I searched on CNN where I first heard about this on TV and found the trasnsripts on their website.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0405/17/lt.03.html

STARR: Now, the shell was apparently not marked, and every indication at the moment is whoever put it there as an explosive device had no idea what was inside. Now, that does, of course, raise some concerns, how many other unmarked shells are out there? What might they contain?

But officials are also putting this, military officials are putting this into perspective. There was some dispersal of some agent. A couple of soldiers did experience some minor symptoms. But this is not a WMD attack, because the way these types of shells are constructed, they are really only most lethal when they are fired from an artillery tube. They move through the air. The lethal agent mixes together, it explodes, and that's when these are real trouble. This is not a good development, but this is not a WMD attack -- Daryn.

I edited this quite a few times, I guess I should take the time learn the exact wordings of things before I say stuff in the future. Believe it or not, it was an honest mistake.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Actually on the news today the white house said, this was not a WMD. They also said that it was likely that those that put the bomb together did not know what it contained because it was unmarked and used in a manner not consistent with the real use of sarin as a WMD.

What I keep going back to concerning saddam and WMD is if he had them why didn't he use them when he was being invaded? Was he waiting for a better opportunity or what?

To me it does not matter if there were WMD before the war, I thought there was and I was still against it because I didn't see the urgent danger for us in the United States and have thought that the Bush administration sexed up the facts to go to war and still think that. I also just plain distrusted their motives in invading Iraq. The fact that Kay and others who have been looking for WMD all this long while said that there aren't any was just an unexpected bonus.

If there are lots of WMD all over the place in Iraq, we must be terribly incompetent in looking for them all this time.

The main reason we were concerned about Saddam getting WMD was the transfer to terrorists. He is no fool, and knows if he launched WMD, we damn well know the return address... Things are much murkier when they are delivered by terrorists. We have little recourse. Bush made it clear that if Saddam used WMD on our troops, we would respond in kind.

0 Replies

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

This is interesting. I don't care if they found WMD's or not, they found a lot of other things... and stopped a lot of horrible things as well. Such horrible things were going on there. I will always have mixed feelings about this war, so I try to focus on the good that has come out of it.

0 Replies

Americans in Iraq Attacked W Bomb Containing Nerve Gas (WMD)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know