Nerve Gas bomb goes off in Iraq.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » May 17, 2004, 1:45 pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3722255.stm

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » May 17, 2004, 1:58 pm

yeah the insurgents (presumably) didnt realize it was Sarin gas in the shell, because you need to shoot it from artillery for the reaction to have time to take place and have sufficient dispersal on impact/explosion. the shell was unmarked, so probably the insurgents just thought it was a conventional shell when they set up the Improvised Explosive Device.

So definitely a few rounds of chemical munitions have been found now (a couple rounds of mustard gas shells were found another time). The questions of course are: are these a few old rounds that have been collecting dust for 10+ years? Are these rounds the result of more recent weapons programs? or are these rounds from outside of Iraq entirely?

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » May 17, 2004, 1:59 pm

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.

I think that needed to be quoted in bold for emphasis.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » May 17, 2004, 2:19 pm

The former regime had declared all such rounds destroyed before the 1991 Gulf War," he said.

I agree Dregor

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » May 17, 2004, 2:21 pm

Voronwë wrote:yeah the insurgents (presumably) didnt realize it was Sarin gas in the shell, because you need to shoot it from artillery for the reaction to have time to take place and have sufficient dispersal on impact/explosion. the shell was unmarked, so probably the insurgents just thought it was a conventional shell when they set up the Improvised Explosive Device.

So definitely a few rounds of chemical munitions have been found now (a couple rounds of mustard gas shells were found another time). The questions of course are: are these a few old rounds that have been collecting dust for 10+ years? Are these rounds the result of more recent weapons programs? or are these rounds from outside of Iraq entirely?

Redfield?...

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » May 17, 2004, 3:27 pm

Heh that's gotta suck if you're the guy responsible for shuffling ammo around. That is you not knowing which of the shells you're working with are nerve gas or not.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » May 17, 2004, 3:41 pm

Cartalas Bold quote > Dregor's Bold Quote!

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » May 17, 2004, 3:56 pm

I'm with Winnow on this one.

Selective quoting just plain owns.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » May 17, 2004, 11:30 pm

Sahweet, 2 points to Cartalas, and one point to Dregor for being bitch...err man enough to not dare reply.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » May 17, 2004, 11:36 pm

Huh? I don't sit here and wait for a reply and I'm a bitch for it? Ok then! Cart's point was a good one. A different matter from why I posted the quote tho, which was the blunt the blind fools who would start talking about them finding the start to the WMDs in Iraq (yes, people are that stupid, read the post in the hostage thread). From the sound of things tho this was an errant shell that escaped destruction and has probably been lying around in someones pile of crap.

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » May 18, 2004, 1:06 am

For the record you can be ignorant on a subject and NOT be stupid.

I posted an article claiming that they may have found evidence of WMD's. I pointed out that I could not comment on it because I did not know enough and that the article was a fyi.

I added the line, first evidence of WMD's???. Should I have put "The article states that this could be..."? probably, but I thought that was a given if you read the article.

I was not there when they found the weapon(s). I am not a member of the media, nor do I really trust them. I am not a member of the government, nor do I really trust them. I am not a member of some secret liberal or conservative group with a special agenda to push. So what little I know about this I have to gleen off multiple sources, read into all the stories and speculate, which is the same as you, unless you have some super secret contacts close to the real story.

I wish we did know the real truth, we probably never will.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » May 18, 2004, 10:51 am

MWD (Madly Whimsical Democrats)

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » May 18, 2004, 11:15 am

Man Is the party line defense getting old, The Democrates ( well some of them), thought there were WMD's and we should invade Iraq.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » May 18, 2004, 1:35 pm

Yeah WMDs. Not "a single, old, rusty, unlabelled WMD".

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » May 18, 2004, 1:41 pm

we all know bush planted this to try and get attention

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » May 18, 2004, 1:48 pm

There are several problems at this stage though..

- If WMDs are found (large quantities, one grenade doesn't count here) a LOT of people will just believe it was planted to take attention away from the torture issues and the general failure of the plans.

- It is pretty obvious that they didn't know what was in the grenade since the way it was used makes it more or less useless.

- At this stage it is more likely that anything minor is brought into Iraq by the hundreds of terrorists that flock to the country these days than it being used by former Saddam people.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » May 18, 2004, 1:54 pm

vn_Tanc wrote:Yeah WMDs. Not "a single, old, rusty, unlabelled WMD".

It was rusty? Get your tetanus shots. Add yet another method of attack being used on our forces.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » May 18, 2004, 3:02 pm

I'm pretty sure that anything that was meant to be shot out of artillery should not be called a grenade, no matter how it was used by the dummies that found it.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » May 18, 2004, 3:46 pm

One alleged sarin gas shell. We caught em red-handed. They clearly could have wiped out the free world....
War in Iraq justified, case dismissed.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » May 18, 2004, 6:10 pm

Hey, we found a couple shells with mustard gas too. Clearly they were setting us up the bomb.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 18, 2004, 7:03 pm

masteen wrote:I'm pretty sure that anything that was meant to be shot out of artillery should not be called a grenade, no matter how it was used by the dummies that found it.

a grenade is any explosive device that is launched through the air by any means.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » May 18, 2004, 7:14 pm

kyoukan wrote:
masteen wrote:I'm pretty sure that anything that was meant to be shot out of artillery should not be called a grenade, no matter how it was used by the dummies that found it.
a grenade is any explosive device that is launched through the air by any means.

teh dictionary wrote:Main Entry: gre·nade
Pronunciation: gr&-'nAd
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, pomegranate, from Late Latin granata, from Latin, feminine of granatus seedy, from granum grain -- more at CORN
: a small missile that contains an explosive or a chemical agent (as tear gas, a flame producer, or a smoke producer) and that is thrown by hand or projected (as by a rifle or special launcher)

I wouldn't call a 155mm artillery shell "small."

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 18, 2004, 7:22 pm

small relative to what? a grenade is an unpropelled explosive device is all Im saying.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » May 18, 2004, 7:27 pm