Is it really that scary? The Iraqi survey group’s article says that it can be treated. I'm not denying it is dangerous, but unless it's significantly more dangerous than a normal shell, there really is no cause for panic. Just because it's called a weapon of mass destructions, it doesn't automatically become capable of causing massive destruction.Jocko said:
Kerberos said:
That's not really what I meant; I know the troops are equipped to counter the threat. But because the insurgents have been linked to al Qaeda and God knows who else, imagine one of these things going off on a crowded train. Or airport. Or a stadium.
A properly primed shell of this type could kill thousands if detonated under optimal conditions, the articles are saying, and civilians don't have countertoxins available on hand. Could make Madrid look like a firecracker in comparison.
Silicon said:
Your goalposts just switched area codes. Just so you know.
I premised the entire thread with a caveat that this, in itself, is not a big deal as far as WMDs go. But such items would not be stored one at a time, would they?
Plus, I'd rather they were used against troops in Iraq who can counter the effects rather than seeing them smuggled to New York, London, Madrid or your home town. Ideal situation? Of course not. But could be a whole lot worse.
Jocko said:
Please point out for me where I set the posts in the first place.
I don't seem to recall making a post where I said:
"The only reason this war sucks is that we didn't find WMD's. If only we found them, this war would be perfect."
I ALWAYS thought Iraq had WMD's. Why? I believed Powell when he spoke of mobile weapons labs in front of the UN. HELL, I believed Bush when he said that Saddam was attempting to reconstitute his nuclear arsenal.
I thought, however, that Bush was rushing into this war. I thought that perhaps Blix and crew should have had a chance to get to the bottom of things. I thought the UN should have been a stronger part of the entire process.
When the nuclear issues turned out to be willfully fudged, I was pissed. When Powell admitted that the mobil weapons labs didn't exist (Yesterday!), I felt by now this was par for the course.
Before the war, I felt SURE that Saddam had WMD's, and I thought that toppling him was the more dangerous route. I was VERY AFRAID that causing chaos and a power-vacuum in Iraq would cause those weapons to disappear immediately, and fall into the hands of terrorists and other non-state actors.
Read my old posts. I said this.
So I'm going to assert that my goalposts haven't budged one bit.
I'm not glad they found this WMD. Not because I'm sad that I can't gloat about another Bush failure. But because it means there's likely more of them, and the terrorists found them before we did.
corplinx
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 8,952
Silicon said:
Perhaps. You have to realize that some of those we are labeling terrorists were former Iraqi military and baathists. I'm not sure some foreign terrorist group stumbled across a cache of Saddam's weapons in the desert.
Of course, the last time we heard about artillery shells leaking an agent, the story panned out in the next few days. I think it might be wise or prudent to let this one simmer a bit before wasteing breath on speculation.
crimresearch
Alumbrado
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 10,600
Well of course NOW they find poison gas shells...didn't Rumsfeld just leave Iraq?
I bet he not only had time to plant another round of WMD evidence, but also to bury all the body parts that the Israelis whisked out of the rubble in Jenin, the thousands of missing votes from Florida2000, and the clothes that Bush wore when he personally hijacked the 9/11 airliners, plus the parachute he used to bail out before impact.
I bet he not only had time to plant another round of WMD evidence, but also to bury all the body parts that the Israelis whisked out of the rubble in Jenin, the thousands of missing votes from Florida2000, and the clothes that Bush wore when he personally hijacked the 9/11 airliners, plus the parachute he used to bail out before impact.
True enough civilians don't have protection as handy as soldiers, but we still have good medical service in both USA and Europe. You say that such a shell could kill thousands, but do you have any basis for making such a claim? Perhaps you have, but I have heard a lot of scary claims in regard to non-conventional weapons, but very little that seemed even remotely solid. USA has been hit with anthrax, which is one of the most lethal non-conventional weapons, and it killed less people than when two maniacs with a sniper rifle went amok, not to mention the Bali or Madrid bombings. I simply fail to see any evidence that non-conventional weapons, as a group, are that scary.Jocko said:
Kerberos said:
I just pulled it from the article on Fox.
Even ham-handed attempts like the Tokyo subway is enough to make me worry, let alone the gassing of the Kurds. Like I said, it all depends on the delivery and the knowledge of the bomber.
I keep on qualifying that I don't see this as the threat posed by, say, a nuke... and if you're not just a little concerned then I'm thinking you never ride the subway.
Chaos
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2003
- Messages
- 10,611
Tmy said:
FWIW when the Tokyo subway attack (also using Sarin) occured the teacher in high school chemistry class told us: "Every one of you would be able to do that, too."
The problem that the Aum sect had was not creating the Sarin but distributing it properly. If it had worked out as planned, it would have killed thousands, if not tens of thousands.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sarin-loaded artillery shell in Iraq
Look, there is no empirical way to link the lack of imported terrorism in america to the war in iraq. Mind you, I supported the war in iraq (even though as a younger man I cried "no blood for oil" during gulf war I).
Confirming yet again G. B. Shaw's famous saying, "if you're not a liberal at 20 you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at 30 you have no brains."
Look, there is no empirical way to link the lack of imported terrorism in america to the war in iraq. Mind you, I supported the war in iraq (even though as a younger man I cried "no blood for oil" during gulf war I).
Confirming yet again G. B. Shaw's famous saying, "if you're not a liberal at 20 you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at 30 you have no brains."
Tmy
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2002
- Messages
- 6,487
We've had top Iraqi officials and Saddam himself in our hands for months. If there was a big WMD cache somewhere dont you think somebody wouldve given it up by now??
I often here people saying the stuff was shipped offto Syria. Is Syria that chummy wh Saddam?? I thought all his neighbors found him rather unlikeable.
I often here people saying the stuff was shipped offto Syria. Is Syria that chummy wh Saddam?? I thought all his neighbors found him rather unlikeable.
Tmy said:
Apparently not, which is why these things are being found in ones and twos, when they're found at all.
As I recall, Syria's economy relied on the flow of Iraqi oil through their pipelines. Syria has no serious oil deposits, so it cashes in where it can.
Kodiak
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 3,279
Latest concerning the Sarin and Mustard Gas shells found in Iraq
From the FOXNews webarticle:
"Everybody knew Saddam had chemical weapons, the question was, where did they go. Unfortunately, everybody jumped on the offramp and said 'well, because we didn't find them, he didn't have them,'" said Fox News military analyst Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney.
"I doubt if it's the tip of the iceberg but it does confirm what we've known ... that he [Saddam] had weapons of mass destruction that he used on his own people," Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, told Fox News. "This does show that the fear we had is very real. Now whether there is much more of this we don't know, Iraq is the size of the state of California."
From the FOXNews webarticle:
"Everybody knew Saddam had chemical weapons, the question was, where did they go. Unfortunately, everybody jumped on the offramp and said 'well, because we didn't find them, he didn't have them,'" said Fox News military analyst Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney.
"I doubt if it's the tip of the iceberg but it does confirm what we've known ... that he [Saddam] had weapons of mass destruction that he used on his own people," Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, told Fox News. "This does show that the fear we had is very real. Now whether there is much more of this we don't know, Iraq is the size of the state of California."
Ahh, I missed that when I read it. Honestly though I don't take such estimates seriously. I don't know if you remember this supposed plan of a terrorist attack using chemical weapons against the US embassy in Jordan I think. I heard estimates of IIRC 50.000 dead if it had succeeded, which was obviously utter nonsense. I strongly suspect that ideal conditions mean something like the victims would have to line up and be administered the exact dose required to kill, and not seek medical attention. Fox news, or any other news agency, simply know that they'll get more attention, if they say thousands of dead than if they say ten, twenty, fifty or whatever a realistic estimate would be.Jocko said:
I do in fact practically never ride the subway, but I doubt I'd be worried even if I were. The risk of a terrorist attack is absolutely insignificant compared to dying from say smoking, lack of exercise or not paying attention to traffic and you have much less chance of doing anything about it. I would of course be happier if Al-Qaida did not have chemical weapons, but I'd also be happier still if they didn't have explosives. So far there hasn't to my knowledge been a single really devastating terrorist attack with non-conventional weapons, but there have been many with explosives.Jocko said:Even ham-handed attempts like the Tokyo subway is enough to make me worry, let alone the gassing of the Kurds. Like I said, it all depends on the delivery and the knowledge of the bomber.
I keep on qualifying that I don't see this as the threat posed by, say, a nuke... and if you're not just a little concerned then I'm thinking you never ride the subway.
It's not just that I think that there's a difference between nukes and other non-conventional weapons. From what I know I simply don't think there's anything to justify treating non-conventional weapons, with the exception of nukes of course, as if they were in a different category than conventional weapons. At least not when it comes to terrorists, who are not capable of using such weapons the way a real army could. A MOAB (Massive Ordnance Air Burst or Mother Of All Bombs) is way more destructive than any chemical or biological weapon, which is why I personally practically never use the term weapons of mass destruction; I'm simply not convinced that it's justified