Sarin-loaded artillery shell in Iraq

Tmy said:
Can you count this thing as a WMD?? The thing actually explodes and the result is what........... 2 soilders treated for exposer?

Doesnt sound very mass destroying.

Yeah, but it proves that Saddam didn't destroy all of his WMD's. And all means all. Not 99.99999999%! 100% or nuthin'! And if you think that's not realistic, especially in a regime rife with corruption and unable to keep a decent record to save its butt (literally in this case), then you're a terrorist-lover!
 
You should build a house, since you have all that straw, crimresearch"

Nice try, troll...its called accountability...when people make wild and ludicrous assertions in public, they deserve to be reminded of their own words later.

And every one of those assertions regarding Jenin, 9/11, 2000, etc. has been put forth in the past few years, without any credible evidence to back up any of them.
Now I'm sure that those same people wish they could rewrite their personal history as easily as they rewrite the rest of reality, but it just isn't going to go away like that..too bad.

So as is standard practice for this forum, the person crying 'strawman', is in fact the one with manure under their own fingernails.
 
Tmy said:
Can you count this thing as a WMD?? The thing actually explodes and the result is what........... 2 soilders treated for exposer?

Doesnt sound very mass destroying.
According to the press, the reason offered for this was that the two isolated compounds inside the shell, which were designed to mix after the shell was fired but before it exploded, apparently didn't mix properly in this case. If the shell had been used in the manner for which it was designed, the explosion could have been vastly more lethal
 
Tmy said:
Can you count this thing as a WMD?? The thing actually explodes and the result is what........... 2 soilders treated for exposer?

Doesnt sound very mass destroying.
According to the press, the reason offered for this was that the two isolated compounds inside the shell, which were designed to mix after the shell was fired but before it exploded, apparently didn't mix properly in this case. If the shell had been used in the manner for which it was designed, the explosion could have been vastly more lethal.

EDITED TO ADD: Sorry about the double post. I guess you can't delete posts like you used to be able to.
 
Mr Manifesto said:


Yeah, but it proves that Saddam didn't destroy all of his WMD's. And all means all. Not 99.99999999%! 100% or nuthin'! And if you think that's not realistic, especially in a regime rife with corruption and unable to keep a decent record to save its butt (literally in this case), then you're a terrorist-lover!

Interesting spin, I give you a gold star for the imagination.

The main point of the problem UN (not even USA) had with Iraq was its inability to say just exactly what it did with the weapons and programs.
 
Tmy said:
Can you count this thing as a WMD?? The thing actually explodes and the result is what........... 2 soilders treated for exposer?

Doesnt sound very mass destroying.

Timmy, I'll give you a shiny new quarter if you read the article. Then all will become clear.
 
Grammatron said:


Interesting spin, I give you a gold star for the imagination.

The main point of the problem UN (not even USA) had with Iraq was its inability to say just exactly what it did with the weapons and programs.

Dat's wight, wabbit, and the reason Iraq couldn't say exactly what they did with them all is a combination of lousy record-keeping and an incident where they burnt records to try to conceal from the US that they ever had WMD's. The UN didn't want to wage war over it, they just wanted to investigate further.

I wonder which option would have been more prudent? Let's ask the head of the Iraqi ruling council... Oops!
 
This is old news. Iraq had been producing Sarin since 1984 and, between 1984 and 1990, they produced about 795 tonnes of Sarin type agents (of which 732 tonnes were weaponized). The vast bulk of this (600 tonnes +) was consumed during 1985-88 and 35 tonnes were destroyed by allied bombing in GW1. Iraq destroyed a further 127 tonnes under UNSCOM supervision.
UNSCOM was also able to verify from documentary evidence that the purity of Sarin-type agents produced by Iraq were, on average, below 60%, and dropped below Iraq’s ,established quality control acceptance level of 40% by purity some 3 to 12 months after production.' 'Sarin-type agents produced by Iraq were largely of low quality and as such, degraded shortly after production.'

It was this poor quality that encouraged Iraq to develop crude 'binary' devices, using alcohol (binaries are munitions in which one precursor chemical is added to another shortly before use, in order to extend shelf-life). Iraq destroyed 337 alcohol-filled aerial bombs and 14 alcohol-filled missile warheads under UNSCOM supervision. UNSCOM was able to verify the unilateral destruction of 527 alcohol-filled aerial bombs and 20 alcohol-filled missile warheads through documentary evidence and observation of remnants.

Iraq also had a stab at using 'true' binary weapons systems using artillery shells and rockets between 1983 and 1990. Supposedly, while the results were promising they were not able to move to full production.

UNSCOM and UNMOVIC reported no evidence of any precursors remaining in Iraq and there were several that Iraq could not produce indigenously. Since there was no evidence of any supplies being imported after 1991, one can be pretty sure that the shell found today was probably a 122mm shell left over from the 80s -most likely a binary since it's hard to believe any of the original 84 vintage could have survived.

(Information mostly from UNMOVIC Working Document 6 March 2003)
 
Mr Manifesto said:


Dat's wight, wabbit, and the reason Iraq couldn't say exactly what they did with them all is a combination of lousy record-keeping and an incident where they burnt records to try to conceal from the US that they ever had WMD's. The UN didn't want to wage war over it, they just wanted to investigate further.

I wonder which option would have been more prudent? Let's ask the head of the Iraqi ruling council... Oops!

No it's cool, let's investigate for another 12 years even though they have no interest in co-operation and see more and more there are no serious consequences for their actions.

I'm sure you can come up with better excuses for Iraq so I await your response.
 
Tmy said:
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.

Considering all the Iraqi scientific and military types we've captured by now, yes. Especially since they no longer need to fear reprisals from Saddam.
 
Grammatron said:


No it's cool, let's investigate for another 12 years even though they have no interest in co-operation and see more and more there are no serious consequences for their actions.

I'm sure you can come up with better excuses for Iraq so I await your response.

No point. America has made her choice, and is currently running to the UN like a slapped bitch asking them to help her out of the mess they've made. Ya gotta love irony.
 
crimresearch said:


So as is standard practice for this forum, the person crying 'strawman', is in fact the one with manure under their own fingernails.

Bullflop.


I called "strawman" to this post:

Crimresearch said:


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.


Find one post where I said any of that nonsense. Trolly troll troll.[


Gimme a big trolly kiss, you trollish trolly-troll.



ss25.jpg



(P.S..........TROLL!)
 
demon said:
This is old news. Iraq had been producing Sarin since 1984 and, between 1984 and 1990, they produced about 795 tonnes of Sarin type agents (of which 732 tonnes were weaponized). The vast bulk of this (600 tonnes +) was consumed during 1985-88 and 35 tonnes were destroyed by allied bombing in GW1. Iraq destroyed a further 127 tonnes under UNSCOM supervision.
UNSCOM was also able to verify from documentary evidence that the purity of Sarin-type agents produced by Iraq were, on average, below 60%, and dropped below Iraq’s ,established quality control acceptance level of 40% by purity some 3 to 12 months after production.' 'Sarin-type agents produced by Iraq were largely of low quality and as such, degraded shortly after production.'

It was this poor quality that encouraged Iraq to develop crude 'binary' devices, using alcohol (binaries are munitions in which one precursor chemical is added to another shortly before use, in order to extend shelf-life). Iraq destroyed 337 alcohol-filled aerial bombs and 14 alcohol-filled missile warheads under UNSCOM supervision. UNSCOM was able to verify the unilateral destruction of 527 alcohol-filled aerial bombs and 20 alcohol-filled missile warheads through documentary evidence and observation of remnants.

Iraq also had a stab at using 'true' binary weapons systems using artillery shells and rockets between 1983 and 1990. Supposedly, while the results were promising they were not able to move to full production.

UNSCOM and UNMOVIC reported no evidence of any precursors remaining in Iraq and there were several that Iraq could not produce indigenously. Since there was no evidence of any supplies being imported after 1991, one can be pretty sure that the shell found today was probably a 122mm shell left over from the 80s -most likely a binary since it's hard to believe any of the original 84 vintage could have survived.

(Information mostly from UNMOVIC Working Document 6 March 2003)


Interesting report although I think you have selectively quoted a bit. Here is some info from the same report regarding the R-400 Sarin/Cyclosarin bombs:

During the period 1992-1998, Iraq changed its declaration on the quantity of bombs it had produced from 1,200 to 1,550. Over the same period, Iraq changed its declaration as to the types of CBW agent fill, leaving UNMOVIC with little confidence in either the numbers produced or types of agent filled. It is not clear from Iraqi statements and documentation how many R-400 bombs had been ordered for CW purposes and the fill between unitary weapons and binary components. Although Iraq has stated that it ordered the production of 200 R-400A bombs, this may not have been the only order.
In addition, photographic evidence shows that R-400A bombs had been located at Al Walid Airbase in October 1991. This contradicts the declaration by Iraq that R-400A bombs had only been deployed to Al Azzizziyah and Airfield 37 and that all such bombs had been destroyed in July or August 1991.
.....
However, questions remained with regard to the manner of the destruction of 160 aerial bombs that Iraq declared as having been destroyed during the Gulf War. These questions may have implications on the accounting of aerial bombs filled with biological agents.
In the absence of further documentation, it cannot be ascertained whether Iraq developed its true binary weapons system for Sarin into large-scale production of binary artillery shells and rockets. To help resolve this issue, Iraq should identify all facilities (in addition to MSE and TRC) that had been involved in production/modification of artillery shells and rockets as true binary weapons. In addition, Iraq should also provide clarification of all details concerning its design for binary weapons systems.
To produce Sarin-type agents, Iraq must have the key precursor MPC as well as hydrogen fluoride (HF) and alcohols. No MPC has been declared or noted during inspections. The alcohols are widely available and have legitimate civilian uses in Iraq. Some 300 tonnes of HF was declared stored at the Arab Detergent Company (ARADET) in December 2002. This represents a significant increase from the amount declared stored there in 1988.
UNSCOM could not fully verify Iraq’s accounting for precursors it had acquired for the production of Sarin-type agents due to the manner in which they were destroyed and stored. Iraq may have retained imported chemicals to produce MPC, which is stable if properly stored. Such imported chemicals, thionyl chloride and phosphorus trichloride (PCl3) (if redistilled), may be viable after years in storage. Documentary evidence and the properties of PCl3, support to some extent Iraq’s assertion that the chemical was lost during storage. However, it cannot be excluded that Iraq has retained some portion of the 1772 tonnes UNSCOM could not account for. The import of thionyl chloride and PCl3 became problematic for Iraq, from 1988 onwards, due to export/import restrictions introduced by the Australia Group. Thionyl chloride and PCl3 were subsequently included in the UN export/import monitoring lists.
 
Mr Manifesto said:


No point. America has made her choice, and is currently running to the UN like a slapped bitch asking them to help her out of the mess they've made. Ya gotta love irony.

No we can handle it we just asked if UN would like to help, but in true UN fashion it can't do jack when a country is in need with out the major world powers. Since USA, UK, Australia, Italy were already there and Russia, German, France are sort of in the middle of a scandal with the whole oil for food program they are kind of disinterested in helping at the moment. I do love UN hypocrisy though...well more like hate with a passion.
 
crimresearch said:

Nice try, troll...its called accountability...when people make wild and ludicrous assertions in public, they deserve to be reminded of their own words later.

And every one of those assertions regarding Jenin, 9/11, 2000, etc. has been put forth in the past few years, without any credible evidence to back up any of them.
Now I'm sure that those same people wish they could rewrite their personal history as easily as they rewrite the rest of reality, but it just isn't going to go away like that..too bad.

So as is standard practice for this forum, the person crying 'strawman', is in fact the one with manure under their own fingernails.
Cerainly these claims have been made, but so have claims that UN is a giant satanistic conspiracy with the sole purpose of destroying the USA and that the Earth is flat. Why don't you try to defend those claim. They can't be straw men after all, since apparently a straw man must now be a claim that was never made by anyone, not even the wackiest conspiracy theorist.
 
No it's cool, let's investigate for another 12 years even though they have no interest in co-operation and see more and more there are no serious consequences for their actions.

How many Americans, Brits, Poles, Aussies were killed in Iraq over the 12 year investigation? How many billions of dollars less were spent each year? How many more Iraqis were killed or tortured in prisons during those 12 years?

Zero, 80ish billion per year, about zero. I vote for investigations.
 
fishbob said:


How many Americans, Brits, Poles, Aussies were killed in Iraq over the 12 year investigation? How many billions of dollars less were spent each year? How many more Iraqis were killed or tortured in prisons during those 12 years?

Zero, 80ish billion per year, about zero. I vote for investigations.
I agree with point one and two, but do you honestly think that Saddam did not torture the people in prisons in the last 12 years?
 
fishbob said:


How many Americans, Brits, Poles, Aussies were killed in Iraq over the 12 year investigation? How many billions of dollars less were spent each year? How many more Iraqis were killed or tortured in prisons during those 12 years?

Zero, 80ish billion per year, about zero. I vote for investigations.

You can't judge success by how many soldiers from those countries did not die and how much money was not spent. That would make Rwanda a success in your book and somehow I think you would not label that as such.
 
...a senior coalition source has told the BBC the round does not signal the discovery of weapons of mass destruction or the escalation of insurgent activity.

He said the round dated back to the Iran-Iraq war and coalition officials were not sure whether the fighters even knew what it contained.
Source: BBC News

NB. Let's hope the BBC aren't trying to sex down this one.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sarin-loaded artillery shell in Iraq

Skeptic said:
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."
Wrong and wrong; the quote is attributed to Winston Churchill and refers to socialists not liberals; considering the political structure of Britain during Churchill's time the latter wouldn't make sense. It's also exactly the kind of patronising remark a member of the privileged classes would make, and an equivocation fallacy (between conservative in its general meaning and its party political meaning) except that it's been mis-attributed, if not made up entirely.
 

Back
Top Bottom