« For Marc Weisblott | Main | extra reading »

About those weapons...

Fox is reporting that a roadside bomb filled with sarin went off in Iraq. Now where in the world did that sarin come from if Saddam didn't have any? Unless, of course, he did. It looks like the insurgents who set off the bomb had no idea it was filled with nerve gas, which is not surprising, as Saddam and Co. loved to hide their non conventional means of murder inside conventional weapons. Now, who wants to take bets on how long it takes some leftie to claim that the nerve gas was planted by US operatives in order to make it look like Saddam had WMDs? Update: Hey, they are at it already!

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference About those weapons...:

» LET'S GO OVER THIS AGAIN - NO WMD'S? from The SmarterCop
Good thing I hit Michelle's site this morning... I would have been completely oblivious (at least until after lunch) to this bit of BREAKING NEWS: A roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent exploded near a U.S. military convoy, but there... [Read More]

» Prisms from protein wisdom
Oops! Looks like we may have found some more of those WMDs that never existed... In related news, Al Qaeda continues to have no connection to Iraq. update: Nevermind. The kids at DU remind us that the Sarin gas is... [Read More]

» What chemicals? from JawsBlog
I'm still hesitant overall about this story, but this morning the news has been reporting that an IED with Sarin Gas was found in Iraq and on Television, Fox News is reporting ("breaking news") that a shell with mustard gas was found about ... [Read More]

» Chemical attack in Iraq from c0llision.org
From CFRA: A roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent exploded near a U-S military convoy in Iraq Monday, but there are no casualties. A military spokesman says a 155-millimetre artillery round containing sarin nerve agent has been found. Brigadier-G... [Read More]

» Nothing to see here... from camedwards.com
As silent as the blogosphere is on Seymour Hersh's piece... the mainstream media is just as silent on the fact that WMD have been used in Iraq. Both sarin gas and mustard gas have been used in IED's in the... [Read More]

» Small chemical bomb explodes in Iraq from The Shape of Days
I'd say this is moderately big news. A U.S.-led coalition convoy in Iraq found sarin gas in an artillery round rigged as an improvised explosive device, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said Monday. The detonation of the device in Iraq resulted [Read More]

Comments

Im sure there is no chance is was smuggled in across the boarder.

I dont know much about Sarin, so some quick checking on google told me...

Sarin is a human-made chemical warfare agent classified as a nerve agent. Nerve agents are the most toxic and rapidly acting of the known chemical warfare agents. They are similar to certain kinds of pesticides (insect killers) called organophosphates in terms of how they work and what kind of harmful effects they cause. However, nerve agents are much more potent than organophosphate pesticides. -CDC

Saddam used sarin along with mustard gas on the Kurds in northern Iraq during Anfal and in 1988 in Halabja. Experts say Saddam also launched about 280 smaller-scale chemical attacks against the Kurds. -Fox News

This doesnt seem like a chemical that a home chemist can whip up (Like Ricin). Is any chemical weapon considered a WMD? If so, would this satisfy the claim of that Iraq had WMDs? I hope we capture the buggers who set this up and find out where it came from.

Michele, if any of those morons from the DUh ever get any sort of power, the world is doomed.

Doesn't matter. Evidence has been found left and right regarding plans, recipes, and programs in place ready to roll. But since they weren't in a missle clearly marked Warning! WMD and pointed at Washington DC with the red launch button flashing, it won't matter to those who oppose the war. The goal posts simply get moved again.

Marble is absolutely right. I e-mailed the news to one of my LLL friends. She wrote back:

"An unmarked shell- origin unknown.
Insurgents are crawling all over.
Still doesn't justify us being there, but nice try."

They're clueless. Apparently terrorists having access to WMDs doesn't worry her in the slightest.

I can hear the sod tearing as the goal post is being moved...

If there was one, there are probably thousands.

The Tehran Times reported recently that the US was smuggling chemical and biological weapons into Iraq. The Tehran Times? You ask. Who would believe anything they have to say about the US? Well, there are some people/bloggers know who made reference t it. They of course pretended to just be pointing it out as "interesting." No doubt they hoped more than anything that it was true.

I think this proves the point that sarin gas is only a "political" WMD. No one dropped a shell of sarin to end world war 2. If a real WMD went off next to one of our convoys, there wouldn't still be a convoy.

We've already seen ricin attacks and anthrax attacks. The added possibility of sarin attacks is bad, but nothing really new. Call me if we find reconstitued nuclear weapons or weaponized ebola.

"I can hear the sod tearing as the goal post is being moved..."

Soli is welcome to oblidge.

Reading comprehension not your strong suit, Soli? It has not been reported that the shell "went off" next to the convoy, only that a small amount might have escaped. But, that's ok, don't let me stop you, I know you have goal post moving to do.

"I can hear the sod tearing as the goal post is being moved..."

Sorry, at this point in the game they've got the goal posts on coasters. Much easier to move.

I believe that the lefties planted the Sarin gas, so they could claim that it was planted by whomever they want to rant about.

FYI Ryan, no one is moving goal posts. Sarin is a horrible weapon, as I said in 1991 and again multiple times after 9/11, its inclusion on the WMD list is more political (as a preventive measure, to include it in mutually assured destruction) than because of actual destructive capability.

Saddam had sarin capability in the Iran-Iraq war. I'd say most everyone on both sides was shocked that we didn't actually find tons of it under one of the palaces. There is a matter of perspective here. If the terrorists now have 500 tons of sarin, than the war in Iraq is a failure. I don't believe that to be the case. If there terrorists have a few shells, it's bad news but it's not going to make them a strategic power or affect the overall status of the war.

Anyone who suggests that this was planted is an idiot. The thought of terrorists having more weapons of any kind is horrible, and sarin is a particularly horrible weapon, although not for it's capacity for mass destruction.

"Nononononoo! It's a horrible weapon, just not horrible ENOUGH! Weather balloons! Plants! Party favors! Where's my medicine?"

It's actually kind of amusing to watch a herd of snorting, bow-legged lefties running around in a soggy field with goalposts on their backs.

Soli,

Give me a break. You ARE moving the goalposts. Sarin is found, and suddenly, in your opinion, it's not a WMD. By this logic, NO chemical weapon is a WMD, since few are even as lethal as sarin. Let's take a look at the gas, shall we?

(From http://cfrterrorism.org/weapons/sarin.html)

What is sarin? One of the world’s most dangerous chemical warfare agents. Sarin is an extremely toxic substance that disrupts the nervous system, overstimulating muscles and vital organs. It can be inhaled as a gas or absorbed through the skin. In high doses, sarin suffocates its victims by paralyzing the muscles around their lungs. One hundred milligrams of sarin—about one drop—can kill the average person in a few minutes if he or she’s not given an antidote. Experts say sarin is more than 500 times as toxic as cyanide.

One. Drop. This shit is human pesticide, and Iraq wasn't supposed to have ANY of it. None.

So please put the goalposts back where you found them. We have a football game to play, and the band isn't supposed to be on the field yet.

"Sarin is a horrible weapon, as I said in 1991 and again multiple times after 9/11, its inclusion on the WMD list is more political (as a preventive measure, to include it in mutually assured destruction) than because of actual destructive capability."

Soli,
So is your argument that only VX, a virulent and highly contagious disease, and nukes are the only WMDs? Maybe Sarin isn't the most efficient CW in the arsenal but I think it still counts as a WMD.

Sarin's actual destructive capability depends on the methods of dispersal, quality of agent and so forth. That is pretty much true of most CW, BW, & RW isn't it? Fair enough that all are not WMD persay. But what is the cut off for the desigantion WMD? Wouldn't it be potential death/casualties/destruction?

Gee, thanks. It's been a year since I visited DU, and spent some time showing, through freshman physics, how the WTC actually could have fallen the way it did. Some induhvidual (Dilbert reference, as in "you put the "DUH" in "Induhvidual) names PlaguePuppy is convinced that Nixon had them pour plastic explosives into the cement of each floor, so a later Republican president could stage a tragedy. This is, of course, when he wasn't explaining how the girders could only have been taken out by some form of DE weapon, I think he thought a focussed microwave beam. A planeload of fuel, a fire, and gravity was apparently too farfetched for his taste...

They haven't gotten any more sensible. I've gotten my moron fix for the year. Hopefully I go another year before seeing that wretched pile of steaming assininity again.

"Give me a break. You ARE moving the goalposts. Sarin is found, and suddenly, in your opinion, it's not a WMD."

-Evil Otto

So sudden that I mailed it back into the past to 1991 and said it then. And my point is that it doesn't change the strategic status of the terrorists (ie they already have used ricin and anthrax).

Finally, I as said in another thread ... when you say "goal posts" are you claiming that the terrorists having sarin is a point for your side? If so, I'd have to say that either you're with al Qaeda or you're what they call a "useful idiot," because anyone on the American side (that would be both the right and the left except Jerry Falwell and Ted Rall) would have to say this ain't good for us.

Soli said: "If a real WMD went off next to one of our convoys, there wouldn't still be a convoy."

Soli, what happened today is that a US convoy got amazingly lucky. The reports say that the shell was a binary round. A binary round is designed with two containers of chemicals. The shock of firing the shell breaks the containers and allows the chemicals to combine INSIDE THE SHELL during flight, making the agent, which is then dispersed on impact and explosion of a small bursting charge. Wrapping a bomb around it and blowing it up would have LOTS less effect because the breaking and mixing during flight wouldn't have time to occur, and the heat of the larger explosion would incinerate the compund(s) at the same time. (That's why we use incinerators to destroy our leftover munitions, BTW.)

I am a civilian contractor with the AF, writing software for AF Civil Engineering, which handles CBW defense for the AF. I work with people who know what this crap does, and every one of them says that that convoy should all be in church tonight.

Finally, I as said in another thread ... when you say "goal posts" are you claiming that the terrorists having sarin is a point for your side?

(sigh) No. I'm saying the anti-war side has been screaming "Bush lied!!! No WMDs!!!" for so long that when some ARE found, no matter whether large or small quantities, there is an immediate attempt to try to paint it as not really being a find. Over and over. If we find mustard gas, well, it's an old stock. If we find artillery shells designed to release chemical weapons, well, that doesn't prove anything. Over and over and over again. Evidence is explained away, excuses made. This whole debate we're having right now is POINTLESS. You, Soli, think sarin isn't a WMD. Fine. I'm certainly not going to convince you of something you've been so cocksure of since 1991 (so you claim). NOTHING can be allowed to show justification for this war, right?

If so, I'd have to say that either you're with al Qaeda or you're what they call a "useful idiot," because anyone on the American side (that would be both the right and the left except Jerry Falwell and Ted Rall) would have to say this ain't good for us.

Wow. Nice strawman. I've got to say that's the feeblest attempt at an argument I've seen in a while. Soli, you know damned well what my point is, and that ain't it. So quit trying to change the subject.

Let me spell it out, again. You are moving the goalposts because you are attempting to classify sarin as not being a WMD. Of course, by the definition you seem to be providing, very little qualifies as a WMD. It certainly does make your argument safe... were the US to find a warehouse filled with chemical weapons tomorrow, you could sit back and say "See? There WAS no WMD threat, since these weapons aren't WMDs!" It doesn't matter whether it was one shell filled with sarin or a building full, it's always something.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than bang my head against the brick wall of your opinions.

Evil Otto -

Apparently you don't know what a straw man is. A straw man is where you make up a weak argument that your opponent is not using, and then knock it down.

I admit that the whole concept of "goal posts" is an incredibly pathetic and weak argument, but you are trying to use it, so it's not a straw man to make fun of it.

Let me spell it out for you ... if, as you claim, saying sarin is not a WMD is "moving the goal posts" then what game are we playing and who just scored a point for the terrorists having sarin? Now do you get it? If it's such a feeble argument then why are you so afraid to answer the question?