Iraq crisis: Isis jihadists 'seize Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons stockpile' - live

a reply to: JJRichey

for those that seen it with their own eyes can contest, there was something eerie about not knowing whats around the place, for a base there was uxo everywhere and all kinds of stuff in canisters etc etc etc. Thanks for your service and Semper Fi Marine

originally posted by: DelMarvel
Also from the OP's link:

17.05 The Chemical Weapons Convention, which Iraq joined in 2009, requires it to dispose of the material at Al Muthanna, even though it was declared unusable and "does not pose a significant security risk"

Declared by who ?

By the same people who didn't see the 'fall' of Iraq coming.

From the link in the OP....this particularly worried me...

However, the UK goverment has acknowledgeded that the nature of the material contained in the two bunkers would make the destruction process difficult and technically challenging.

WTF is/now was in those bunkers?????

Great...just f*****g great...now we can expect them to turn up as those 'terrorist' attacks we have been alerted to in London.

Rainbows
Jane

a reply to: angelchemuel

That material contained in there can still be used to make dirty bombs.

But hey they declared it 'no' security threat.

a reply to: neo96

I guess this has to be posted for those who don't bother reading the thread.

I can't figure out what you're doing.

You keep posting the same video as damning evidence of what?

Albright, Clinton and Sandy Burger from 1998.

What happened in 1998? Oh that's right, Desert Fox, which was what? Four days of bombing intended to degrade Iraq's capabilities and punish them for failing to comply with UN inspections? I seem to remember neocons saying then that Clinton didn't go far enough even though there were reports even then that the capabilities were exaggerated. There was no push by any of the three for a WAR in Iraq followed by occupation and a failed nation building campaign. This is just a feeble attempt at conflating two issues — a lot like what the Bush administration pulled with 9/11 and Iraq.

Then there are various Democrats from 2002 & 2003 supporting Bush. Shame on them all, but let's not forget that the Bush administration with the aid of the CIA and the conservative MSM was busy manufacturing consent with a host of lies and dubious intelligence reports. What is this supposed to prove? That there are gullible Democrats? That there are *gasp* Democrats who jumped on the bandwagon because it was politically expedient?

What's the point? That Democrats also share in the blame with Bush? How can that be your point when you are:

1) Defending Bush and therefore don't appear to blame him for anything.
2) Promoting warmonger and profiteer Dick Cheney's blathering?

What exactly do you propose the US does? I asked this earlier in the thread and you said something about mai tais.

a reply to: neo96

Yes...that's exactly what I'm angry about, especially given the UK government said the 'material' would at that time be

difficult and technically challenging

to destroy!!

They are already bleating on here that because of all this ISIS goings on, London and other major cities in the UK could be under threat of terrorist attacks this summer....it's like they forgot to finish their sentence off with...."Because in a few days ISIS will be handed chemical weapons that we couldn't destroy under the 2009 agreement....ooops we're terribly sorry about that".....no scratch the apology bit....they wouldn't say that...I was getting carried away with myself.

Rainbows
Jane

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: angelchemuel

That material contained in there can still be used to make dirty bombs.

But hey they declared it 'no' security threat.

Dirty bombs? Are you insinuating that chemical weapon components are radioactive material? That doesn't even make sense.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I can't figure out what you're doing.

Rather obvious I thought.

The US has always had the SAME policy towards Iraq.

But I guess that doesn't matter.

a reply to: angelchemuel

Think it has been proven rather well that in both Syria, and Iraq ISIS is rather resourceful.

What we did by that declaration was arrogant, conceited.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Dirty bombs? Are you insinuating that chemical weapon components are radioactive material? That doesn't even make sense.

Seriously shameful that comment EVEN has to be explained.

Chemical agents dispersed by explosive materials.

The chemical equivalent to a dirty bomb.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: theantediluvian

Dirty bombs? Are you insinuating that chemical weapon components are radioactive material? That doesn't even make sense.

Seriously shameful that comment EVEN has to be explained.

Chemical agents dispersed by explosive materials.

The chemical equivalent to a dirty bomb.

You're literally just going through the Bush administration playbook. Next you'll be warning that the smoking gun could be a "mushroom cloud." I'm not a munitions expert but chemical agents are a lot more readily available than radioactive material and have been for the better part of a century and though terrorists have used chemical agents in attacks, I have yet to hear of any using thermal dispersion. It stands to reason that it's an inherently flawed method of delivery since a large portion of the agent is likely to be incinerated.

If you'd like to provide some evidence that this is a realistic threat, I'd love to see it.

a reply to: theantediluvian

You're literally just going through the Bush administration playbook.

That wasn't 'Bush's' playbook.

That was Clintons playbook, then the guys before him.

But hey NO MATTER WHAT.

Demagogue Bush!

a reply to: neo96

Chemical weapons like Sarin have a very short (some in only a few weeks) shelf life. The best way to extend said shelf life is to have the precursors separated in the weapon, only mixed together when the weapon is ready to be used, or is already in flight. I don't believe old chemical weapons would make a very effective dirty bomb, unless they got a hold of some binary chemical weapons (the ones where the precursors are stored separate).

For an example, in 2004 some Iraqi insurgents detonated a 155mm artillery shell that was a binary chemical weapon. It had very little effect, probably b/c the precursors were so old by then or they simply failed to mix together very well.

Even if a chemical weapon put together by someone like ISIS wasn't very effective, it would still make a pretty effective psychological weapon.

I'm more worried that they might get newer chemical weapons from someone else, some country sympathetic to their cause perhaps. Or simply purchasing them on the black market even. Sarin itself, from what I understand, isn't all that difficult to produce given people with the knowledge and sources to procure or manufacture the equipment are available, as well as the precursors of course.

**BTW, I wanted to add, when I was over there, I was in the logistics field. We were worried enough about chemical weapons that we had a few of those big palatalized containers containing a bunch of those etropine antidote injections.

a reply to: JJRichey

I'm more worried that they might get newer chemical weapons from someone else, some country sympathetic to their cause perhaps.

That happened in Syria.

And there are alot of sympathetic countries to ISIS.

Mostly Sunni.

a reply to: neo96

Agreed. Whom do you think they got their CWs from?

originally posted by: JJRichey
a reply to: neo96

Agreed. Whom do you think they got their CWs from?

Saudi,Qatar.Kuwait, UAE etc.

Countries in the ME that are sunni friendly.

a reply to: JJRichey

Also wanted to remind you (not that these are pleasent to remember)


Do you remember all the chlorine bombs that guerillas used to use in ramadi and fallujah? Those are chemical weapons too are they not? I mean granted they are not exactly military manufactured but still none the less are chemical in nature and highly lethal and those are apparently easily made with materials in high abundance just laying around.

a reply to: neo96

I apologize ahead of time, because I'm not really well versed in this topic, but if ISIS already has chemical weapons, why haven't they used them in Iraq? Or have they? I'm just curious as I haven't heard any reports of them being used as of yet, but like I said, I don't necessarily follow real close whats going on over there anymore. If ISIS does have them, why not yell about it like they are the captured weapons? Trying to keep it secret? Sorry, I honestly don't know where I"m going with these questions, just trying to figure it out in my head for curiosity's sake.

a reply to: JJRichey

I apologize ahead of time, because I'm not really well versed in this topic, but if ISIS already has chemical weapons, why haven't they used them in Iraq?

Probably because they have met little resistance.

Saving their ace in the hole for another day.

They didn't start using them in Syria until towards the end when the fighting got worse.

The chlorine bombs weren't being used untill 2006, after I had already gone back to the states, but yes I would think chlorine would still be considered a "chemical weapon", just not in the context that most people think of. Hell a bomb filled with bleach and urine would make an effective weapon even (essentially, that would create chlorine gas). *By effective, I mean it would at least work. Chlorine isn't really all that effective at creating real casulties- I'd think the inital explosion would cause more harm than the chlorine itself.

originally posted by: Brotherman
a reply to: JJRichey

Also wanted to remind you (not that these are pleasent to remember)


Do you remember all the chlorine bombs that guerillas used to use in ramadi and fallujah? Those are chemical weapons too are they not? I mean granted they are not exactly military manufactured but still none the less are chemical in nature and highly lethal and those are apparently easily made with materials in high abundance just laying around.

***Ok, that makes perfect sense, thanks Neo, I appreciate the thoughts.