Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
By Liza Porteus
NEW YORK — Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday
confirm that it did contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly
nerve agent sarin (search), Defense Department officials told Fox News Tuesday.
The artillery shell was being used as an improvised roadside bomb, the U.S.
military said Monday. The 155-mm shell exploded before it could be rendered
inoperable, and two U.S. soldiers were treated for minor exposure to the nerve
agent.
Three liters is about three-quarters of a gallon; four liters is a little more
than a gallon.
"A little drop on your skin will kill you" in the binary form, said Ret. Air
Force Col. Randall Larsen, founder of Homeland Security Associates. "So for
those in immediate proximity, three liters is a lot," but he added that from a
military standpoint, a barrage of shells with that much sarin in them would
more likely be used as a weapon than one single shell.
The soldiers displayed "classic" symptoms of sarin exposure, most notably
dilated pupils and nausea, officials said. The symptoms ran their course fairly
quickly, however, and as of Tuesday the two had returned to duty.
The munition found was a binary chemical shell, meaning it featured two
chambers, each containing separate chemical compounds. Upon impact with the
ground after the shell is fired, the barrier between the chambers is broken,
the chemicals mix and sarin is created and dispersed.
Intelligence officials stressed that the compounds did not mix effectively on
Saturday. Due to the detonation, burn-off and resulting spillage, it was not
clear exactly how much harmful material was inside the shell.
A 155-mm shell can hold two to five liters of sarin; three to four liters is
likely the right number, intelligence officials said.
Another shell filled with mustard gas (search), possibly also part of an
improvised explosive device (IED) was discovered on May 2, Defense Dept.
officials said.
The second shell was found by passing soldiers in a median on a thoroughfare
west of Baghdad. It probably was simply left there by someone, officials said,
and it was unclear whether it was meant to be used as a bomb.
Click Here to Read the Weapons of Mass Destruction Handbook
Testing done by the Iraqi Survey Group (search) — a U.S.-organized group of
weapons inspectors who have been searching for weapons of mass destruction
(search) since the ouster of Saddam Hussein — concluded that the mustard gas
was "stored improperly" and was thus "ineffective."
"It's not out of the ordinary or unusual that you would find something [like
these weapons] in a haphazard fashion" in Iraq, Edward Turzanski, a political
and national security analyst, told Fox News on Tuesday.
But "you have to be very careful not to be entirely dismissive of it," he
added. "It remains to be seen whether they have more shells like this."
Iraq: A 'Bazaar of Weapons'
New weapons caches are being found every day, experts said, including "hundreds
of thousands" of rocket-propelled grenades and portable anti-aircraft weapons.
"Clearly, if we're gonna find one or two of these every so often — used as an
IED or some other way — the threat is not all that high, but it does confirm
suspicion that he [Saddam] did have this stuff," said Ret. U.S. Army Col.
Robert Maginnis.
"It is a bazaar of weapons that are available on every marketplace throughout
that country," Maginnis added. "We're doing everything we can to aggressively
disarm these people, but there were so many things that were stored away by
Saddam Hussein in that country ... it's a huge job that we're tackling."
Some experts were concerned that enemy fighters with access to potential
weapons of mass destruction in a country full of stockpiles could mean more
risk to coalition forces and Iraqis.
"What we don't know is if there are other shells, which there certainly could
be," said Dennis Ross, a former ambassador and special Middle East coordinator
and a Fox News foreign affairs analyst. "We also don't know whether or not
these kind of shells could be used as explosives, which could have a more
devastating effect on our troops."
Other experts said the individual shells themselves don't pose a threat to the
masses.
"I'm not as concerned they're going to use a lot of chemical munitions,"
Maginnis said. "They're not gonna use these as improvised explosive devices
because they don't have a big blast associated with them, but they do combine
those two compounds into the noxious sarin gas. But they can't do it all that
well with a small explosive charge."
"The reality is, they'd have to have a whole bunch of these things," he added,
"have to find some way of blowing them with a large charge to even create a
cloud."
That doesn't mean insurgents couldn't find a better way to make the devices to
create a more "terrorist-type of attack" against U.S. forces, Maginnis
continued.
The task of military analysts in Baghdad will be to determine how old the sarin
shell is. A final determination will have a significant effect on how weapons
researchers and inspectors proceed.
Some experts suggested that the two shells, which were unmarked, date back to
the first Persian Gulf War. The mustard gas shell may have been one of 550
projectiles that Saddam failed to account for in his weapons declaration
shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began. Iraq also failed to account for
450 aerial bombs containing mustard gas.
It's not clear if enemy fighters simply found an old stockpile of weapons, or
if they even knew what was inside.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld reacted cautiously to the news of the
discoveries.
"What we have to then do is to try to track down and figure out how it might be
there, what caused that to be there in this improvised explosive device, and
what might it mean in terms of the risks to our forces," Rumsfeld said Monday.
Kurds: We Have Evidence of WMD
An Iraqi Kurdish official had no doubt similar substances will be found as the
weapons hunt continues.
"We don't know where they are, but we suspect they are hidden in many locations
in Iraq," Howar Ziad, the Kurdish representative to the United Nations, told
Fox News on Tuesday. "It's quite possible that even the neighboring states who
are against the reform of Iraq ... are helping the Saddamites in hiding."
"As we know, the Baathist regime had a track record of using" these chemicals
against people in Iraq, such as the Kurds, Ziad continued. "He's [Saddam] never
kept any commitment he's ever made to the international committee nor to the
people" to not use such deadly materials.
Saddam's regime used sarin in mass amounts during an air attack on the Kurdish
town of Halabja (search) in 1988, toward the end of the Iran-Iraq War. More
than 5,000 people are believed to have died in Halabja and surrounding
villages, with more than 65,000 were injured.
Both Iraq and Iran used chemical weapons during the 1980-88 war.
Ziad said the United Nations, the World Health Organization and others had not
"bothered" to travel to the Iraqi Kurdistan to see the firsthand effects sarin
and other chemical weapons had on people and to get proof that Saddam did in
fact possess such weapons.
"We have evidence — we have victims of the use of those agents, and we're
still waiting for WHO and the U.N. to come investigate," Ziad said.
Fox News' Bret Baier, Mike Emanuel and Ian McCaleb contributed to this report.
.
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell |
20 May 2004 06:20:03 PM |
|
|
In article <20040520063247.21319.00001770@mb-m04.aol.com>, (TonyZ2001) wrote:
Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
By Liza Porteus
NEW YORK — Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday
confirm that it did contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly
nerve agent sarin (search), Defense Department officials told Fox News Tuesday.
Pre- Gulf war era. Nothing new, nothing to indicate Saddam ever built back up.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell |
21 May 2004 03:00:38 AM |
|
|
woodswun@tepidmail.com
wrote:
Pre- Gulf war era.
Really? You're on the inside? You're privy to top level info?
I didn't know, sorry.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "ex" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell |
21 May 2004 06:48:19 AM |
|
|
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040521040038.19642.00001329@mb-m03.aol.com...
woodswun@tepidmail.com
wrote:
Pre- Gulf war era.
Really? You're on the inside? You're privy to top level info?
Ya feelin' left out of the loop? What are *your* insiders at WND saying? Are
they quoting Dr. Kay's opinion?
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.681 / Virus Database: 443 - Release Date: 5/10/04
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell |
20 May 2004 09:23:54 AM |
|
|
TonyZ2001 a écrit:
Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
By Liza Porteus
NEW YORK — Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday
confirm that it did contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly
nerve agent sarin (search), Defense Department officials told Fox News Tuesday.
The artillery shell was being used as an improvised roadside bomb, the U.S.
military said Monday. The 155-mm shell exploded before it could be rendered
inoperable, and two U.S. soldiers were treated for minor exposure to the nerve
agent.
Three liters is about three-quarters of a gallon; four liters is a little more
than a gallon.
Ha? Ha right, that is not an imperial gallon.
Anyway, the point is that this is the proof of WMD in Iraq.
Who will apologize first from the coalition of he weasels?
J.
"A little drop on your skin will kill you" in the binary form, said Ret. Air
Force Col. Randall Larsen, founder of Homeland Security Associates. "So for
those in immediate proximity, three liters is a lot," but he added that from a
military standpoint, a barrage of shells with that much sarin in them would
more likely be used as a weapon than one single shell.
The soldiers displayed "classic" symptoms of sarin exposure, most notably
dilated pupils and nausea, officials said. The symptoms ran their course fairly
quickly, however, and as of Tuesday the two had returned to duty.
The munition found was a binary chemical shell, meaning it featured two
chambers, each containing separate chemical compounds. Upon impact with the
ground after the shell is fired, the barrier between the chambers is broken,
the chemicals mix and sarin is created and dispersed.
Intelligence officials stressed that the compounds did not mix effectively on
Saturday. Due to the detonation, burn-off and resulting spillage, it was not
clear exactly how much harmful material was inside the shell.
A 155-mm shell can hold two to five liters of sarin; three to four liters is
likely the right number, intelligence officials said.
Another shell filled with mustard gas (search), possibly also part of an
improvised explosive device (IED) was discovered on May 2, Defense Dept.
officials said.
The second shell was found by passing soldiers in a median on a thoroughfare
west of Baghdad. It probably was simply left there by someone, officials said,
and it was unclear whether it was meant to be used as a bomb.
Click Here to Read the Weapons of Mass Destruction Handbook
Testing done by the Iraqi Survey Group (search) — a U.S.-organized group of
weapons inspectors who have been searching for weapons of mass destruction
(search) since the ouster of Saddam Hussein — concluded that the mustard gas
was "stored improperly" and was thus "ineffective."
"It's not out of the ordinary or unusual that you would find something [like
these weapons] in a haphazard fashion" in Iraq, Edward Turzanski, a political
and national security analyst, told Fox News on Tuesday.
But "you have to be very careful not to be entirely dismissive of it," he
added. "It remains to be seen whether they have more shells like this."
Iraq: A 'Bazaar of Weapons'
New weapons caches are being found every day, experts said, including "hundreds
of thousands" of rocket-propelled grenades and portable anti-aircraft weapons.
"Clearly, if we're gonna find one or two of these every so often — used as an
IED or some other way — the threat is not all that high, but it does confirm
suspicion that he [Saddam] did have this stuff," said Ret. U.S. Army Col.
Robert Maginnis.
"It is a bazaar of weapons that are available on every marketplace throughout
that country," Maginnis added. "We're doing everything we can to aggressively
disarm these people, but there were so many things that were stored away by
Saddam Hussein in that country ... it's a huge job that we're tackling."
Some experts were concerned that enemy fighters with access to potential
weapons of mass destruction in a country full of stockpiles could mean more
risk to coalition forces and Iraqis.
"What we don't know is if there are other shells, which there certainly could
be," said Dennis Ross, a former ambassador and special Middle East coordinator
and a Fox News foreign affairs analyst. "We also don't know whether or not
these kind of shells could be used as explosives, which could have a more
devastating effect on our troops."
Other experts said the individual shells themselves don't pose a threat to the
masses.
"I'm not as concerned they're going to use a lot of chemical munitions,"
Maginnis said. "They're not gonna use these as improvised explosive devices
because they don't have a big blast associated with them, but they do combine
those two compounds into the noxious sarin gas. But they can't do it all that
well with a small explosive charge."
"The reality is, they'd have to have a whole bunch of these things," he added,
"have to find some way of blowing them with a large charge to even create a
cloud."
That doesn't mean insurgents couldn't find a better way to make the devices to
create a more "terrorist-type of attack" against U.S. forces, Maginnis
continued.
The task of military analysts in Baghdad will be to determine how old the sarin
shell is. A final determination will have a significant effect on how weapons
researchers and inspectors proceed.
Some experts suggested that the two shells, which were unmarked, date back to
the first Persian Gulf War. The mustard gas shell may have been one of 550
projectiles that Saddam failed to account for in his weapons declaration
shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began. Iraq also failed to account for
450 aerial bombs containing mustard gas.
It's not clear if enemy fighters simply found an old stockpile of weapons, or
if they even knew what was inside.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld reacted cautiously to the news of the
discoveries.
"What we have to then do is to try to track down and figure out how it might be
there, what caused that to be there in this improvised explosive device, and
what might it mean in terms of the risks to our forces," Rumsfeld said Monday.
Kurds: We Have Evidence of WMD
An Iraqi Kurdish official had no doubt similar substances will be found as the
weapons hunt continues.
"We don't know where they are, but we suspect they are hidden in many locations
in Iraq," Howar Ziad, the Kurdish representative to the United Nations, told
Fox News on Tuesday. "It's quite possible that even the neighboring states who
are against the reform of Iraq ... are helping the Saddamites in hiding."
"As we know, the Baathist regime had a track record of using" these chemicals
against people in Iraq, such as the Kurds, Ziad continued. "He's [Saddam] never
kept any commitment he's ever made to the international committee nor to the
people" to not use such deadly materials.
Saddam's regime used sarin in mass amounts during an air attack on the Kurdish
town of Halabja (search) in 1988, toward the end of the Iran-Iraq War. More
than 5,000 people are believed to have died in Halabja and surrounding
villages, with more than 65,000 were injured.
Both Iraq and Iran used chemical weapons during the 1980-88 war.
Ziad said the United Nations, the World Health Organization and others had not
"bothered" to travel to the Iraqi Kurdistan to see the firsthand effects sarin
and other chemical weapons had on people and to get proof that Saddam did in
fact possess such weapons.
"We have evidence — we have victims of the use of those agents, and we're
still waiting for WHO and the U.N. to come investigate," Ziad said.
Fox News' Bret Baier, Mike Emanuel and Ian McCaleb contributed to this report.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ex" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell |
20 May 2004 03:27:30 PM |
|
|
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:_b3rc.15758403$Id.2609493@news.easynews.com...
TonyZ2001 a écrit:
Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
By Liza Porteus
NEW YORK - Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday
confirm that it did contain an estimated three or four liters of the
deadly
nerve agent sarin (search), Defense Department officials told Fox News
Tuesday.
The artillery shell was being used as an improvised roadside bomb, the
U.S.
military said Monday. The 155-mm shell exploded before it could be
rendered
inoperable, and two U.S. soldiers were treated for minor exposure to the
nerve
agent.
Three liters is about three-quarters of a gallon; four liters is a
little more
than a gallon.
Ha? Ha right, that is not an imperial gallon.
Anyway, the point is that this is the proof of WMD in Iraq.
Who will apologize first from the coalition of he weasels?
J.
One shell doesn't add up to the vast quantities Bush said were present and
even so hardly justifies the invasion at this point.
You even said the CIA were lied to about WMD's by the weasel Chabali (
sp? ). You appear to be contradicting yourself. Besides Chabali is the
weasel that led the Admin. by the nose ... Coalition of Weasels is an
appropriate term indeed.
-ex
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.681 / Virus Database: 443 - Release Date: 5/10/04
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Johnathan McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell |
20 May 2004 09:43:03 PM |
|
|
"ex" <ex@ex.com> wrote in message news:<_w8rc.75369$325.1587296@news20.bellglobal.com>...
One shell doesn't add up to the vast quantities Bush said were present and
even so hardly justifies the invasion at this point.
Yet that shell means something. ...including to who is doing the
business of supplying those weapons and guess what?...it turned out to
be not the U.S. ( Shell analysis).
I guess that Syria bust of WMD meant little to nothing to you, did it?
Who are you for anyway, the terrorists?
also, I guess Fact means racism too, huh?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/5/17/170427.shtml
.
|
|
|
| User: "ex" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell |
21 May 2004 06:44:03 AM |
|
|
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dd3256f0.0405201843.357c39fe@posting.google.com...
"ex" <ex@ex.com> wrote in message
news:<_w8rc.75369$325.1587296@news20.bellglobal.com>...
One shell doesn't add up to the vast quantities Bush said were present
and
even so hardly justifies the invasion at this point.
Yet that shell means something. ...including to who is doing the
business of supplying those weapons and guess what?...it turned out to
be not the U.S. ( Shell analysis).
I guess that Syria bust of WMD meant little to nothing to you, did it?
Who are you for anyway, the terrorists?
Well, "If you're not with us, then you're against us" right? And since I
think Bush and his policy makers are corrupt, inept and highly deceptive,
then I'm sure you would come to that simple-minded conclusion.
also, I guess Fact means racism too, huh?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/5/17/170427.shtml
It would be really helpful if you could quote within the context of the
complete post. Otherwise it appears to be gibberish ... but gibberish seems
to be your mother tongue.
-ex
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.681 / Virus Database: 443 - Release Date: 5/10/04
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell |
20 May 2004 04:35:53 PM |
|
|
ex a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:_b3rc.15758403$Id.2609493@news.easynews.com...
TonyZ2001 a écrit:
Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
By Liza Porteus
NEW YORK - Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday
confirm that it did contain an estimated three or four liters of the
deadly
nerve agent sarin (search), Defense Department officials told Fox News
Tuesday.
The artillery shell was being used as an improvised roadside bomb, the
U.S.
military said Monday. The 155-mm shell exploded before it could be
rendered
inoperable, and two U.S. soldiers were treated for minor exposure to the
nerve
agent.
Three liters is about three-quarters of a gallon; four liters is a
little more
than a gallon.
Ha? Ha right, that is not an imperial gallon.
Anyway, the point is that this is the proof of WMD in Iraq.
Who will apologize first from the coalition of he weasels?
J.
One shell doesn't add up to the vast quantities Bush said were present and
even so hardly justifies the invasion at this point.
Yes it does, and yes it does.
You even said the CIA were lied to about WMD's by the weasel Chabali (
No I didn't. I said Chalabi lied.
sp? ). You appear to be contradicting yourself. Besides Chabali is the
weasel that led the Admin. by the nose ... Coalition of Weasels is an
appropriate term indeed.
-ex
I think you have no grasp of the reality of intelligence gathering. He was one
source out of thousands.
The stuff is there somewhere, and the fact that not one single WMD was supposed
to be physically there, according to the UN resolutions, shows that that
invasion was justified. We have proof of two sample from two distinct batches of
the unaccounted for WMD.
But it was justified for lots of other reasons besides WMD. He breached the
resolutions in many other ways. He had it coming.
This is merely the justification of the presence of actual WMD, and there are
certainly as many as there were that were unaccounted for, and surely even more.
The only question is where will they be found. No other question.
Now, I doN't know if that has to do with Chalabi, all I know is that he now is
said to have provided unreliable information. Who cares about what? If it was
unreliable. Doesn't mean the stuff isn't there. It just concerns the character
of the guy himself. Doesn't imply anything else. Not the CIA, not the commander
in Chief, not the US. Chalabi.
you are the only one who makes up these weird conclusions that have absolutely
no connection. No wonder you get nothing about the situation.
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ex" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell |
20 May 2004 06:51:59 PM |
|
|
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:Zw9rc.15878367$Of.2646311@news.easynews.com...
ex a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:_b3rc.15758403$Id.2609493@news.easynews.com...
TonyZ2001 a écrit:
Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
By Liza Porteus
NEW YORK - Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday
confirm that it did contain an estimated three or four liters of the
deadly
nerve agent sarin (search), Defense Department officials told Fox News
Tuesday.
The artillery shell was being used as an improvised roadside bomb, the
U.S.
military said Monday. The 155-mm shell exploded before it could be
rendered
inoperable, and two U.S. soldiers were treated for minor exposure to
the
nerve
agent.
Three liters is about three-quarters of a gallon; four liters is a
little more
than a gallon.
Ha? Ha right, that is not an imperial gallon.
Anyway, the point is that this is the proof of WMD in Iraq.
Who will apologize first from the coalition of he weasels?
J.
One shell doesn't add up to the vast quantities Bush said were present
and
even so hardly justifies the invasion at this point.
Yes it does, and yes it does.
You even said the CIA were lied to about WMD's by the weasel Chabali (
No I didn't. I said Chalabi lied.
sp? ). You appear to be contradicting yourself. Besides Chabali is the
weasel that led the Admin. by the nose ... Coalition of Weasels is an
appropriate term indeed.
-ex
I think you have no grasp of the reality of intelligence gathering. He was
one
source out of thousands.
Yes! But, he was obviously quite significant if they were paying him the
significant amount of money they were. It's a good bet alot of the
intelligence they got was paid for. And Chabali seems to have gotten the
lion's share of it. Which means they were likely weighting his the heaviest
out of the supposed mountains of it.
The stuff is there somewhere, and the fact that not one single WMD was
supposed
to be physically there, according to the UN resolutions, shows that that
invasion was justified. We have proof of two sample from two distinct
batches of
the unaccounted for WMD.
It was unmarked. There was no way to tell if it was a regular artillary
shell or one laced with sarin. If this is the case then it's unlikely
they'll ever be able to identify which are run-of-the-mill and which are
chem loaded. And it's unlikely there are any records available to help.
But it was justified for lots of other reasons besides WMD. He breached
the
resolutions in many other ways. He had it coming.
No it wasn't justified for any other reason. This was part of Bush's grand
War Against Terrorism. He did a fine job of getting the U.N. inspectors back
into Iraq ( which technically forced Iraq to comply with the resolutions ).
But it appears now it was just a facade for his ( or Cheney's and Rummie's )
plans to invade the country. Iraq was not a threat on the scale that was
depicted.
And besides, they screwed things up so badly it's made the whole global
terrorism situation worse.
This is merely the justification of the presence of actual WMD, and there
are
certainly as many as there were that were unaccounted for, and surely even
more.
The only question is where will they be found. No other question.
The only question is: did they exist? The U.S. appointed their own inspector
( Dr. Kay ) after the invasion was completed because they didn't like Blix.
After months searching without any interference from Saddam or his henchmen,
Dr. Kay comes back and says "We were wrong." And that's a fact.
Now, I doN't know if that has to do with Chalabi, all I know is that he
now is
said to have provided unreliable information. Who cares about what?
I do. And apparently so does the upper echelon of the Admin or why else
would they have cut off his funding, raided his office then seal it off with
100 troops? They no longer like this man nor trust him.
If it was
unreliable. Doesn't mean the stuff isn't there. It just concerns the
character
of the guy himself. Doesn't imply anything else. Not the CIA, not the
commander
in Chief, not the US. Chalabi.
I'm still saying they used his information ( or gave it a significant amount
of weight seeing the amounts of cash he received ) to justify the invasion.
They had high hopes for this guy. They trusted him. And that's the CIA's
fault for not checking further into his reliability or possible motives.
you are the only one who makes up these weird conclusions that have
absolutely
no connection. No wonder you get nothing about the situation.
Hehehehe ... to be fair, I'd say we're both no less wrong until the someone
has the guts to spill the facts. You're 'wierd' conclusion also have some
weak connections. And I don't get you're perception of the situation 'cause
my gut tells me Bush and his Admin are seriously corrupt and deceptive.
-ex
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.681 / Virus Database: 443 - Release Date: 5/10/04
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell |
21 May 2004 11:57:03 AM |
|
|
ex a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:Zw9rc.15878367$Of.2646311@news.easynews.com...
ex a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:_b3rc.15758403$Id.2609493@news.easynews.com...
TonyZ2001 a écrit:
Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
By Liza Porteus
NEW YORK - Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday
confirm that it did contain an estimated three or four liters of the
deadly
nerve agent sarin (search), Defense Department officials told Fox News
Tuesday.
The artillery shell was being used as an improvised roadside bomb, the
U.S.
military said Monday. The 155-mm shell exploded before it could be
rendered
inoperable, and two U.S. soldiers were treated for minor exposure to
the
nerve
agent.
Three liters is about three-quarters of a gallon; four liters is a
little more
than a gallon.
Ha? Ha right, that is not an imperial gallon.
Anyway, the point is that this is the proof of WMD in Iraq.
Who will apologize first from the coalition of he weasels?
J.
One shell doesn't add up to the vast quantities Bush said were present
and
even so hardly justifies the invasion at this point.
Yes it does, and yes it does.
You even said the CIA were lied to about WMD's by the weasel Chabali (
No I didn't. I said Chalabi lied.
sp? ). You appear to be contradicting yourself. Besides Chabali is the
weasel that led the Admin. by the nose ... Coalition of Weasels is an
appropriate term indeed.
-ex
I think you have no grasp of the reality of intelligence gathering. He was
one
source out of thousands.
Yes! But, he was obviously quite significant if they were paying him the
significant amount of money they were. It's a good bet alot of the
intelligence they got was paid for. And Chabali seems to have gotten the
lion's share of it. Which means they were likely weighting his the heaviest
out of the supposed mountains of it.
I doubt it very much. He was there for political reasons, to identify and
organize the anti-Saddam, more than to spot the pro-saddam, although one leads
to the other... As for the amount his contribution provided, it remains to be
assessed.
The stuff is there somewhere, and the fact that not one single WMD was
supposed
to be physically there, according to the UN resolutions, shows that that
invasion was justified. We have proof of two sample from two distinct
batches of
the unaccounted for WMD.
It was unmarked. There was no way to tell if it was a regular artillary
shell or one laced with sarin. If this is the case then it's unlikely
they'll ever be able to identify which are run-of-the-mill and which are
chem loaded. And it's unlikely there are any records available to help.
But it was justified for lots of other reasons besides WMD. He breached
the
resolutions in many other ways. He had it coming.
No it wasn't justified for any other reason.
Of course it was. There was no choice but go there after the way Saddam acted
with Kuwait and Israel, with the resolutions as they stand. Only anti-semitism
and anti-Americanism made the UN almost be destroyed. Nothing else.
This was part of Bush's grand
War Against Terrorism. He did a fine job of getting the U.N. inspectors back
into Iraq ( which technically forced Iraq to comply with the resolutions ).
But it appears now it was just a facade for his ( or Cheney's and Rummie's )
plans to invade the country. Iraq was not a threat on the scale that was
depicted.
Meaningless. There was only one choice left to do once Saddam had defied the
resolution again with almost every single obligation, lest the UN would have
been totally irrelevant.
Not two. One. The serious consequences. The only thing left, which he tried to
do, was to soften the blow, by voting for regime change instead of regime
annihilation. Traitor France promised veto. So nothing could save Saddam's party
and government after that.
I doN't care what whoever says about imminent threat, this above is the reason
given to go there, it is the only logical reason, although yes, Saddam was
surely an imminent threat if he had decided to become one and surely had
dealings with AlQaeda. Surely that the use of WMD in the future will come from
his WMD, whether those he shipped to Syria or those that are part of the anthrax
that was posted in the US by the hijackers. Either way he was a threat. But
anyway, this has nothing to do with why the coalition applied the serious
consequences, the UN, US-led coalition had NO choice.
And besides, they screwed things up so badly it's made the whole global
terrorism situation worse.
This is the SOLE fault of Al Jazirah who has always from the beginning licked
the ***** of terrorists.
This is merely the justification of the presence of actual WMD, and there
are
certainly as many as there were that were unaccounted for, and surely even
more.
The only question is where will they be found. No other question.
The only question is: did they exist? The U.S. appointed their own inspector
( Dr. Kay ) after the invasion was completed because they didn't like Blix.
After months searching without any interference from Saddam or his henchmen,
Dr. Kay comes back and says "We were wrong." And that's a fact.
Nope. and this is not the question. They exist, and Kay is a sold out traitor or
is deluded and acts like a speed freak on a down. There is no way they
disappeared into thin air, there is no way he can know what tons (two years
worth of analysis) of documents contain. There is no way he can believe that
Saddam destroyed the WMD without showing this to the world. And there is no way
you can even believe he did, after the insurgents have used two different ones
by mistakes, proving there are so many lying around, concealed as unmarked
shells, that this can happen.
Impossible that this was not concealed on purpose. It may show that the people
who knew about them being there, besides Saddam, are probably in custody.
Now, I doN't know if that has to do with Chalabi, all I know is that he
now is
said to have provided unreliable information. Who cares about what?
I do. And apparently so does the upper echelon of the Admin or why else
would they have cut off his funding, raided his office then seal it off with
100 troops? They no longer like this man nor trust him.
The funding was to stop with the actual formation. of the provisional
government. It wasn't something that was unexpected. The raids, well, that is
for the Iraqi police to tell, it appears i is a question of Iranian spying and
corruption with some people who are in his group, not himself personally. Or so
they say.
But the 30 millions dollars fraud is something very fishy that needs to be
clarified. I he is guilty, why is he free? Was he charged?
If it was
unreliable. Doesn't mean the stuff isn't there. It just concerns the
character
of the guy himself. Doesn't imply anything else. Not the CIA, not the
commander
in Chief, not the US. Chalabi.
I'm still saying they used his information ( or gave it a significant amount
of weight seeing the amounts of cash he received ) to justify the invasion.
They had high hopes for this guy. They trusted him. And that's the CIA's
fault for not checking further into his reliability or possible motives.
I still think that he was paid to make a new government more than to give
strategical information which he couldn't have had. But he could have provided
false information on the allegiance of some of his personal enemies, for
instance. I don't know what bad info he gave anyway, but since they say there
are a lot, I can't imagine it was some strategical data, after 30 years. It had
to be political intelligence.
you are the only one who makes up these weird conclusions that have
absolutely
no connection. No wonder you get nothing about the situation.
Hehehehe ... to be fair, I'd say we're both no less wrong until the someone
has the guts to spill the facts. You're 'wierd' conclusion also have some
weak connections. And I don't get you're perception of the situation 'cause
my gut tells me Bush and his Admin are seriously corrupt and deceptive.
-ex
The only real problem so far with the administration is the prisoners abuse
which is supposed to be at low level. Even today's pentagon briefing we were
ascertained that in no circumstances whatsoever, not even special circumstances,
was there ever any authorization to go beyond the Geneva convention. But this is
the only problem, still at low level, with the pictures that show the abuses
were really terrible, and inexcusable. Even though the administration has no
part in that, it may be what fucks everything up.
Whatever the administration itself did so far is perfectly legit. You are right,
the world is showered with anti-US propaganda. I mean ordinary people, doN't
know about the diplomatic contingencies, or nothing, they just believe the
anti-adminsitration political propaganda tat says the prez lied.
Even today, Christopher Reeve was saying that on BBC World today about the
administration as if that was not mere insidious rumors, but the truth. I can
understand that he is pissed because of the stems cells. But these intentions
that are attributed to Bush can only undermine his cause.
Unfortunately, the scandal of the prison which is not even the administration
fault even makes supporters like NBC Dennis Miller throw the towel on Iraq.
It is incredible how everything goes wrong by way of mere rumors spreading.
Doesn't change that the work has to be completed, but maybe this latest
misfortune will do more to undermine whatever the US did than whatever piles of
total garbage that was gathered on their back. It could be the pail that break
the camel's back. And that is because almost everybody yanks at the imaginary
booboo.
J.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell |
20 May 2004 06:22:57 PM |
|
|
In article <_b3rc.15758403$Id.2609493@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
TonyZ2001 a écrit:
Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
By Liza Porteus
NEW YORK — Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday
confirm that it did contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly
nerve agent sarin (search), Defense Department officials told Fox News
Tuesday.
The artillery shell was being used as an improvised roadside bomb, the U.S.
military said Monday. The 155-mm shell exploded before it could be rendered
inoperable, and two U.S. soldiers were treated for minor exposure to the
nerve
agent.
Three liters is about three-quarters of a gallon; four liters is a little
more
than a gallon.
Ha? Ha right, that is not an imperial gallon.
Anyway, the point is that this is the proof of WMD in Iraq.
Who will apologize first from the coalition of he weasels?
I believe everyone assumed there was still some pre-Gulf war stuff lying around.
The problem everyone had with Bush were his claims of an ongoing WMD program,
and WMDs that were an imminent threat. (Not to mention the nuke program).
I don't think 14-year-old artillery shells could be considered an "imminent
threat" even by the Bush spin team, which is why the story dropped from sight so
quickly.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell |
21 May 2004 03:03:40 AM |
|
|
woodswun@tepidmail.com
wrote:
I believe everyone assumed there was
I don't think 14-year-old artillery shells >could be considered an "imminent
threat" even by the Bush spin team, >which is why the story dropped from sight
so quickly.
The reason the story has "dropped from site" is because you are watching and
reading Liberal led news; they don't want this info being talked about.
Also, you have no proof that this shell was 14 yrs old, yet you are stating it
as fact. For all you know it may have been made in 2002.
Tony
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "ex" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell |
21 May 2004 06:47:04 AM |
|
|
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040521040340.19642.00001330@mb-m03.aol.com...
woodswun@tepidmail.com
wrote:
I believe everyone assumed there was
I don't think 14-year-old artillery shells >could be considered an
"imminent
threat" even by the Bush spin team, >which is why the story dropped from
sight
so quickly.
The reason the story has "dropped from site" is because you are watching
and
reading Liberal led news; they don't want this info being talked about.
Also, you have no proof that this shell was 14 yrs old, yet you are
stating it
as fact. For all you know it may have been made in 2002.
If you check some other media outlets, you'd find Dr. Kay ( our beloved
U.S.appointed weapons inspector ) stating that it was likely a leftover from
long ago.
-ex
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.681 / Virus Database: 443 - Release Date: 5/10/04
.
|
|
|
| User: " John F Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell |
21 May 2004 07:06:52 AM |
|
|
"ex" <ex@ex.com> wrote in message
news:2%lrc.83077$325.1813640@news20.bellglobal.com...
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040521040340.19642.00001330@mb-m03.aol.com...
woodswun@tepidmail.com
wrote:
I believe everyone assumed there was
I don't think 14-year-old artillery shells >could be considered an
"imminent
threat" even by the Bush spin team, >which is why the story dropped
from
sight
so quickly.
The reason the story has "dropped from site" is because you are watching
and
reading Liberal led news; they don't want this info being talked about.
Also, you have no proof that this shell was 14 yrs old, yet you are
stating it
as fact. For all you know it may have been made in 2002.
If you check some other media outlets, you'd find Dr. Kay ( our beloved
U.S.appointed weapons inspector ) stating that it was likely a leftover
from
long ago.
-ex
A lot of conservatives, including William Safire the other day, grasping at
these WMD straws. Neocons under pressure.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell |
21 May 2004 07:21:53 AM |
|
|
John F Lemke" <jflemke@LocalLink.net>
wrote:
"ex" <ex@ex.com> wrote in message
news:2%lrc.83077$325.1813640@news20.bellglobal.com...
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040521040340.19642.00001330@mb-m03.aol.com...
woodswun@tepidmail.com
wrote:
I believe everyone assumed there was
I don't think 14-year-old artillery shells >could be considered an
"imminent
threat" even by the Bush spin team, >which is why the story dropped
from
sight
so quickly.
The reason the story has "dropped from site" is because you are watching
and
reading Liberal led news; they don't want this info being talked about.
Also, you have no proof that this shell was 14 yrs old, yet you are
stating it
as fact. For all you know it may have been made in 2002.
If you check some other media outlets, you'd find Dr. Kay ( our beloved
U.S.appointed weapons inspector ) stating that it was likely a leftover
from
long ago.
-ex
A lot of conservatives, including William >Safire the other day, grasping at
these WMD straws. Neocons under >pressure.
I wonder what you're going to say when these weapons are used on a wide scale.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "ex" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell |
21 May 2004 12:41:54 PM |
|
|
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040521082153.10326.00001971@mb-m03.aol.com...
John F Lemke" <jflemke@LocalLink.net>
wrote:
"ex" <ex@ex.com> wrote in message
news:2%lrc.83077$325.1813640@news20.bellglobal.com...
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040521040340.19642.00001330@mb-m03.aol.com...
woodswun@tepidmail.com
wrote:
I believe everyone assumed there was
I don't think 14-year-old artillery shells >could be considered an
"imminent
threat" even by the Bush spin team, >which is why the story dropped
from
sight
so quickly.
The reason the story has "dropped from site" is because you are
watching
and
reading Liberal led news; they don't want this info being talked
about.
Also, you have no proof that this shell was 14 yrs old, yet you are
stating it
as fact. For all you know it may have been made in 2002.
If you check some other media outlets, you'd find Dr. Kay ( our beloved
U.S.appointed weapons inspector ) stating that it was likely a leftover
from
long ago.
-ex
A lot of conservatives, including William >Safire the other day, grasping
at
these WMD straws. Neocons under >pressure.
I wonder what you're going to say when these weapons are used on a wide
scale.
Tony
I wonder when you're going to clue the guys that used it likely had no idea
there was sarin in it ... it looked like your regular Iraqi cornerstore
brand of artillary shell. I don't think they got it at Ali Babba's Discount
WMD Outlet.
-ex
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.681 / Virus Database: 443 - Release Date: 5/10/04
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell |
22 May 2004 07:39:56 AM |
|
|
On 21 May 2004 12:21:53 GMT, (TonyZ2001) wrote:
John F Lemke" <jflemke@LocalLink.net>
wrote:
"ex" <ex@ex.com> wrote in message
news:2%lrc.83077$325.1813640@news20.bellglobal.com...
"TonyZ2001" < > wrote in message
news:20040521040340.19642.00001330@mb-m03.aol.com...
woodswun@tepidmail.com
wrote:
I believe everyone assumed there was
I don't think 14-year-old artillery shells >could be considered an
"imminent
threat" even by the Bush spin team, >which is why the story dropped
from
sight
so quickly.
The reason the story has "dropped from site" is because you are watching
and
reading Liberal led news; they don't want this info being talked about.
Also, you have no proof that this shell was 14 yrs old, yet you are
stating it
as fact. For all you know it may have been made in 2002.
If you check some other media outlets, you'd find Dr. Kay ( our beloved
U.S.appointed weapons inspector ) stating that it was likely a leftover
from
long ago.
-ex
A lot of conservatives, including William >Safire the other day, grasping at
these WMD straws. Neocons under >pressure.
I wonder what you're going to say when these weapons are used on a wide scale.
Tony
The only way they will be used is if the Americunts use it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell |
21 May 2004 07:19:21 AM |
|
|
"ex"
wrote:
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040521040340.19642.00001330@mb-m03.aol.com...
woodswun@tepidmail.com
wrote:
I believe everyone assumed there was
I don't think 14-year-old artillery shells >could be considered an
"imminent
threat" even by the Bush spin team, >which is why the story dropped from
sight
so quickly.
The reason the story has "dropped from site" is because you are watching
and
reading Liberal led news; they don't want this info being talked about.
Also, you have no proof that this shell was 14 yrs old, yet you are
stating it
as fact. For all you know it may have >>been made in 2002.
If you check some other media outlets, >you'd find Dr. Kay ( our beloved
U.S.appointed weapons inspector ) >tating that it was likely a leftover from
long ago.
Really now? Do tell, how long ago exactly? and How likely? 10%? 30%? He
didn't say it certainly was, did he?
And if it is a "leftover" then there just might be tons of "leftovers" because
there are tons of WMD unaccounted for according to the UN inspectors.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "ex" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell |
21 May 2004 12:44:12 PM |
|
|
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040521081921.10326.00001970@mb-m03.aol.com...
"ex"
wrote:
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040521040340.19642.00001330@mb-m03.aol.com...
woodswun@tepidmail.com
wrote:
I believe everyone assumed there was
I don't think 14-year-old artillery shells >could be considered an
"imminent
threat" even by the Bush spin team, >which is why the story dropped
from
sight
so quickly.
The reason the story has "dropped from site" is because you are
watching
and
reading Liberal led news; they don't want this info being talked about.
Also, you have no proof that this shell was 14 yrs old, yet you are
stating it
as fact. For all you know it may have >>been made in 2002.
If you check some other media outlets, >you'd find Dr. Kay ( our beloved
U.S.appointed weapons inspector ) >tating that it was likely a leftover
from
long ago.
Really now? Do tell, how long ago exactly? and How likely? 10%? 30%? He
didn't say it certainly was, did he?
And if it is a "leftover" then there just might be tons of "leftovers"
because
there are tons of WMD unaccounted for according to the UN inspectors.
Tony
Since the guy was there, on the ground, in Iraq, with the sole purpose of
finding any trace of WMD's, I'd put more worth on his comments then the
drivel that rolls out of your mouth. Kay still seems to be a lot less
worried then the idiot neocons.
-ex
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.681 / Virus Database: 443 - Release Date: 5/10/04
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell |
21 May 2004 08:01:41 PM |
|
|
In article <20040521081921.10326.00001970@mb-m03.aol.com>, (TonyZ2001) wrote:
"ex"
wrote:
"TonyZ2001" < > wrote in message
news:20040521040340.19642.00001330@mb-m03.aol.com...
woodswun@tepidmail.com
wrote:
I believe everyone assumed there was
I don't think 14-year-old artillery shells >could be considered an
"imminent
threat" even by the Bush spin team, >which is why the story dropped from
sight
so quickly.
The reason the story has "dropped from site" is because you are watching
and
reading Liberal led news; they don't want this info being talked about.
Also, you have no proof that this shell was 14 yrs old, yet you are
stating it
as fact. For all you know it may have >>been made in 2002.
If you check some other media outlets, >you'd find Dr. Kay ( our beloved
U.S.appointed weapons inspector ) >tating that it was likely a leftover from
long ago.
Really now? Do tell, how long ago exactly? and How likely? 10%? 30%? He
didn't say it certainly was, did he?
And if it is a "leftover" then there just might be tons of "leftovers" because
there are tons of WMD unaccounted for according to the UN inspectors.
But what we supposedly were invading Iraq for was the "imminent threat" posed by
his ongoing WMD programs - not stuff that was left over from the Gulf War and
before.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell |
22 May 2004 10:00:34 AM |
|
|
woodswun@tepidmail.com
wrote:
tonyz2001@aol.com (TonyZ2001) wrote:
"ex"
wrote:
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040521040340.19642.00001330@mb-m03.aol.com...
woodswun@tepidmail.com
wrote:
I believe everyone assumed there was
I don't think 14-year-old artillery shells >could be considered an
"imminent
threat" even by the Bush spin team, >which is why the story dropped from
sight
so quickly.
The reason the story has "dropped from site" is because you are watching
and
reading Liberal led news; they don't want this info being talked about.
Also, you have no proof that this shell was 14 yrs old, yet you are
stating it
as fact. For all you know it may have >>been made in 2002.
If you check some other media outlets, >you'd find Dr. Kay ( our beloved
U.S.appointed weapons inspector ) >tating that it was likely a leftover
from
long ago.
Really now? Do tell, how long ago exactly? and How likely? 10%? 30%? He
didn't say it certainly was, did he?
And if it is a "leftover" then there just might be tons of "leftovers"
because
there are tons of WMD unaccounted for >>according to the UN inspectors.
But what we supposedly were invading >Iraq for was the "imminent threat" posed
by his ongoing WMD programs - not >stuff that was left over from the Gulf War
and before.
Stockpiles of WMD are far more of an imminent threat than a factory.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "bollogs" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell |
22 May 2004 12:28:36 PM |
|
|
(TonyZ2001) wrote in message news:<20040522110034.17668.00000897@mb-m15.aol.com>...
woodswun@tepidmail.com
wrote:
(TonyZ2001) wrote:
"ex"
wrote:
"TonyZ2001" < > wrote in message
news:20040521040340.19642.00001330@mb-m03.aol.com...
woodswun@tepidmail.com
wrote:
I believe everyone assumed there was
I don't think 14-year-old artillery shells >could be considered an
"imminent
threat" even by the Bush spin team, >which is why the story dropped from
sight
so quickly.
The reason the story has "dropped from site" is because you are watching
and
reading Liberal led news; they don't want this info being talked about.
Also, you have no proof that this shell was 14 yrs old, yet you are
stating it
as fact. For all you know it may have >>been made in 2002.
If you check some other media outlets, >you'd find Dr. Kay ( our beloved
U.S.appointed weapons inspector ) >tating that it was likely a leftover
from
long ago.
Really now? Do tell, how long ago exactly? and How likely? 10%? 30%? He
didn't say it certainly was, did he?
And if it is a "leftover" then there just might be tons of "leftovers"
because
there are tons of WMD unaccounted for >>according to the UN inspectors.
But what we supposedly were invading >Iraq for was the "imminent threat" posed
by his ongoing WMD programs - not >stuff that was left over from the Gulf War
and before.
Stockpiles of WMD are far more of an imminent threat than a factory.
Tony
And a little roadside bomb with *traces* of sarin is hardly "stockpiles" pantyboy!
WH
.
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell |
23 May 2004 12:30:38 AM |
|
|
bollogs@hotmail.com
wrote:
And a little roadside bomb with *traces* >of sarin is hardly "stockpiles"
pantyboy!
You're a Clown, nothing more.
That particular explosive had about a gallon of Sarin, not a "trace", and if
properly detonated could have killed hundreds of people.
If you think that, that bomb is the only one around, and not from a
considerable stockpile, then you're not only a Clown, but a very stupid Clown.
Tony
"Sometimes we don't need History at all."
Dani
.
|
|
|
| User: "bollogs" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell |
23 May 2004 06:12:20 AM |
|
|
(TonyZ2001) wrote in message news:<20040523013038.26631.00001996@mb-m29.aol.com>...
bollogs@hotmail.com
wrote:
And a little roadside bomb with *traces* >of sarin is hardly "stockpiles"
pantyboy!
You're a Clown, nothing more.
That particular explosive had about a gallon of Sarin, not a "trace", and if
properly detonated could have killed hundreds of people.
No it hadn't you lying *****. This bomb needed to be fired in a
cannon to produce sarin gas from the mixing of two chemicals. Blowing
it up on the roadside did nothing of the sort and even the seppo's
don't believe that the insurgents actually knew what they were dealing
with. Sarin is a vapour pantyboy so there was no *gallon* of it in the
bomb. A trace of sarin was produced in the explosion, and it is
produced by the mixing of two chemicals, about a half kilo of each was
actually in the bomb according to sources other than WND. No more.
This is the type of bomb manufactured by Iraq during the 1980's and
used in Iran...the remainder being subsequently destroyed by the UN's
weapon inspectors. A few are most likely lying about in Iraq but
hardly WMD quantities to make Iraq a serious threat to it's
neighbours, Israel, GB and/or yankieland. Not an excuse to go to war!
If you think that, that bomb is the only one around, and not from a
considerable stockpile, then you're not only a Clown, but a very stupid Clown.
"The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter
artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," said
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the chief military spokesman in Iraq. "The
round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which
was discovered by a U.S. force convoy.
"A detonation occurred before the IED could be rendered inoperable.
This produced a very small dispersal of agent," he said.
"A VERY SMALL DISPERSAL OF AGENT" <<==see that pantyboy!
WH
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell |
22 May 2004 11:21:41 AM |
|
|
In article <20040522110034.17668.00000897@mb-m15.aol.com>, (TonyZ2001) wrote:
woodswun@tepidmail.com
wrote:
(TonyZ2001) wrote:
"ex"
wrote:
"TonyZ2001" < > wrote in message
news:20040521040340.19642.00001330@mb-m03.aol.com...
woodswun@tepidmail.com
wrote:
I believe everyone assumed there was
I don't think 14-year-old artillery shells >could be considered an
"imminent
threat" even by the Bush spin team, >which is why the story dropped from
sight
so quickly.
The reason the story has "dropped from site" is because you are watching
and
reading Liberal led news; they don't want this info being talked about.
Also, you have no proof that this shell was 14 yrs old, yet you are
stating it
as fact. For all you know it may have >>been made in 2002.
If you check some other media outlets, >you'd find Dr. Kay ( our beloved
U.S.appointed weapons inspector ) >tating that it was likely a leftover
from
long ago.
Really now? Do tell, how long ago exactly? and How likely? 10%? 30%? He
didn't say it certainly was, did he?
And if it is a "leftover" then there just might be tons of "leftovers"
because
there are tons of WMD unaccounted for >>according to the UN inspectors.
But what we supposedly were invading >Iraq for was the "imminent threat" posed
by his ongoing WMD programs - not >stuff that was left over from the Gulf War
and before.
Stockpiles of WMD are far more of an imminent threat than a factory.
Give it a rest - the alleged stockpiles weren't what Bush was talking about, as
you well know.
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell |
23 May 2004 08:02:59 AM |
|
|
On 22 May 2004 15:00:34 GMT, (TonyZ2001) wrote:
woodswun@tepidmail.com
wrote:
(TonyZ2001) wrote:
"ex"
wrote:
"TonyZ2001" < > wrote in message
news:20040521040340.19642.00001330@mb-m03.aol.com...
woodswun@tepidmail.com
wrote:
I believe everyone assumed there was
I don't think 14-year-old artillery shells >could be considered an
"imminent
threat" even by the Bush spin team, >which is why the story dropped from
sight
so quickly.
The reason the story has "dropped from site" is because you are watching
and
reading Liberal led news; they don't want this info being talked about.
Also, you have no proof that this shell was 14 yrs old, yet you are
stating it
as fact. For all you know it may have >>been made in 2002.
If you check some other media outlets, >you'd find Dr. Kay ( our beloved
U.S.appointed weapons inspector ) >tating that it was likely a leftover
from
long ago.
Really now? Do tell, how long ago exactly? and How likely? 10%? 30%? He
didn't say it certainly was, did he?
And if it is a "leftover" then there just might be tons of "leftovers"
because
there are tons of WMD unaccounted for >>according to the UN inspectors.
But what we supposedly were invading >Iraq for was the "imminent threat" posed
by his ongoing WMD programs - not >stuff that was left over from the Gulf War
and before.
Stockpiles of WMD are far more of an imminent threat than a factory.
Tony
What stockpile? Give your head a shake there pantyboy. THERE ARE NO
WMD's in IRAQ for the 10,000th time.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell |
21 May 2004 07:26:46 AM |
|
|
On 21 May 2004 08:03:40 GMT, (TonyZ2001) wrote:
woodswun@tepidmail.com
wrote:
I believe everyone assumed there was
I don't think 14-year-old artillery shells >could be considered an "imminent
threat" even by the Bush spin team, >which is why the story dropped from sight
so quickly.
The reason the story has "dropped from site" is because you are watching and
reading Liberal led news; they don't want this info being talked about.
Also, you have no proof that this shell was 14 yrs old, yet you are stating it
as fact. For all you know it may have been made in 2002.
Tony
Woods
Chew on this then pantyboy.:
Iraq sarin shell is not part of a secret cache
By Scott Ritter
DELMAR, N.Y. – In the mid-1980s I served as the intelligence officer
for a Marine artillery battalion. Stationed in Twentynine Palms,
Calif., I would often find myself deployed in the field, on exercises
where thousands of live artillery rounds were fired downrange.
In keeping with the Marine artillery motto of "shoot, move,
communicate," we were always moving from one firing location to
another to simulate modern war. This mobility had us often passing
through live-fire impact areas. One thing you quickly learned was not
to touch anything lying on the ground, because modern artillery shells
had a high "dud" rate, meaning they didn't always function the way
they were intended. Tens of thousands of these "duds" were scattered
across the desert terrain, not unlike those found in Iraq.
What makes this relevant now is the ongoing speculation about the
source of the sarin chemical artillery shell that the US military
found rigged as an improvised explosive device (IED) last week in
Baghdad. If the 155-mm shell was a "dud" fired long ago - which is
highly likely - then it would not be evidence of the secret stockpile
of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that the Bush administration used
as justification to invade Iraq.As a United Nations weapons inspector
in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, I know that the Iraq Survey Group (ISG),
the US-led unit now responsible for investigating WMD in Iraq, could
quite easily determine whether this shell had been fired long ago or
not. Given the trouble the administration has had in documenting its
past allegations about WMD, releasing the news of last week's sarin
shell without the key information about the state of the shell itself
seems disingenuous.
As a former UN inspector, I'm also familiar with the level of
disarmament achieved concerning Iraq's banned WMD. And during my time
in Iraq, 95 percent of the WMD produced by Iraq were verifiably
accounted for. But I've always contended that Iraq is a WMD
archaeological site, and that if one digs long enough, vestiges of
these past WMD programs will be uncovered. Determining whether the
discovery of the sarin artillery shell represents such an
archaeological discovery, or is part of Saddam Hussein's alleged
stockpile of WMD, rests with a full forensic exam of the shell.
The key to whether the sarin artillery round came from an arms cache
or was a derelict dud rests in the physical characteristics of the
shell. The artillery shells in question were fitted with two aluminum
cannisters separated by a rupture disk. The two precursor chemicals
for the kind of sarin associated with this shell were stored
separately in these containers. The thrust of the shell being fired
was designed to cause the liquid in the forward cannister to press
back and break the rupture disk, whereupon the rotation of the shell
as it headed downrange would mix the two precursors together, creating
sarin. Upon impact with the ground - or in the air, if a timed fuse
was used - a burster charge would break the shell, releasing the sarin
gas.
Many things go wrong when firing an artillery round: the propellent
charge can be faulty, resulting in a round that doesn't reach its
target; the fuse can malfunction, preventing the burster charge from
going off, leaving the round intact; the rupture disk can fail to
burst, keeping precursor chemicals from combining. The fuse could
break off on impact, leaving the fuse cavity empty. To the untrained
eye, the artillery shell, if found in this state, would look
weathered, but unfired.
What gives away whether the shell had been fired is the base-bleed
charge, which unlike the rest of the shell, will show evidence of
being fired (or not). Iraq declared that it had produced 170 of these
base-bleed sarin artillery shells as part of a research and
development program that never led to production. Ten of these shells
were tested using inert fill - oil and colored water. Ten others were
tested in simulated firing using the sarin precursors. And 150 of
these shells, filled with sarin precursors, were live-fired at an
artillery range south of Baghdad. A 10 percent dud rate among
artillery shells isn't unheard of - and even greater percentages can
occur. So there's a good possibility that at least 15 of these sarin
artillery shells failed and lie forgotten in the Iraq desert, waiting
to be picked up by any unsuspecting insurgent looking for raw material
from which to construct an IED.
Given what's known about sarin shells, the US could be expected to
offer a careful recital of the data with news of the shell. But facts
that should have accompanied the story - the type of shell, its
condition, whether it had been fired previously, and the age and
viability of the sarin and precursor chemicals - were absent. And
that's opened the door to irresponsible speculation that the shell was
part of a live WMD stockpile. The data - available to the ISG - would
put this development in proper perspective - allowing responsible
discussion of the event and its possible ramifications.
Given that the US is in the midst of a contentious presidential
campaign, it's essential that accurate data about Iraq be available to
the electorate. The handling of the sarin shell incident is the
greatest justification yet for shutting down the ISG, and the
immediate return to Iraq of UN weapons inspectors - if for no other
reason than to restore a vestige of credibility to a disarmament
effort that long ago lost its moral compass.
• Scott Ritter was a UN weapons inspector in Iraq (1991-1998) and is
author of 'Frontier Justice: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the
Bushwhacking of America.'
.
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell |
21 May 2004 09:08:45 AM |
|
|
Zak@home.com
wrote:
Iraq sarin shell is not part of a sec | | | | | |