Full Version: Sarin gas discovered in Iraq
QUOTE(Ogden @ May 19 2004, 03:06 PM)
I would imagine that if you wanted to figure out the difference between HE shells and Sarin shells, unmarked and mixed together, you could just start weighing them.
Very good question actually, and one I did not know the answer to, so I did a bit of digging. The standard weight of a FH-70 155mm howitzer HE shell is 43.5 kg. Apparently other shell types for that gun are the same weight, even if the payload is lighter the shell is weighted to the same weaight for the same gun. This means gunners will not have to re-calculate the significant effect shell weight would have on range and trajectory each time the change shell types.(HE, submunition, mines, guided, proximity, chemical (smoke), etc)
Now thats what I found for the FH-70, which is NOT the kind of Howitzer that Iraq used, but I see no reason to assume that it would be any different for other similar guns. Shell weight would affect range and accuracy, so it makes sense to make sure all shells for a particular cannon have similar weights...
Hardly scientific proof, but reasonable enough...
Vermillion,
Please refrain from double-posting. You can go back and edit your last post and add additional information, if required.
QUOTE(Vermillion @ May 19 2004, 10:06 AM)
I don't want to have to repeat again the fact, cited several times, that the US and the UK, including Kimmet have declared that the terrorist clearly did not know that it was a sarin shell, and that this does not signify the discovery of WMD in Iraq. I don't know why people on this forum continue to disagree with them, they are in a position to know, they have far more knowledge of the events then us, and they also have a vested interest in there BEING WMD in Iraq, so the standard acusation of 'Oh, thats just the left-wing's opinion' does not apply.
As I said, if you are going to propose some big conspiracy theory that:
-makes no sense
-has no supporting evidence
-is not accepted by everyone in a position to know in the field
then you have to provide a shred of evidence, anything really, anything at all... to back it up. I say again, idle speculation about how this MIGHT have come froma super-secret massive pile of similarily unmarked gas shells hidden somewhere in the desert not discovered by UN inspectors or US search teams is literally fiction unless you can provide even the slightest bit of evidence that its possible. The US military disagrees with you, they seem confident it is an isolated accident. Why are you so sure?
You logic is fatally flawed.
Firstly, there have been HUNDREDS of IEDs detonated in the last year, involving thousands of shells. Most result in little or no damage, only those that kill or main hit the media. The most common kind of IED is unexploded munitions, usually several artillery shells being remotely detonated. So your 'maths' argument does not even make any sense. Given the widespread use of these shells, that one eventually would be a sarin shell if there were saril shells lost in the pile is not only possible, it is almost inevitable.
Secondly, no I am not saying there is only one shell. The mistake of marking which caused this one to get lost could easily have been repeated, there could be other shells out these lost in the stocks of shells prepared by the Iraqi military.
Thirdly, the fact that 'there must be stockpiles because Sarin was used as an excuse to start the war' is completely silly. So was nuclear weapons preparations, and biological weapons. So was active chemical weapons production facilities. NONE of those have been found at all, and the WMD argument had largely been discarded even by the right wing. Even if that were not the case, it is circular logic: There must be WMD because we said there were WMD because there must be WMD.
Fourthly, if there exist secret stockpiles of sarin gas shells nobody has heard of or discovered despite UN inspection teams and almost a year of searching by the US military, then why, after getting one of these super-secret shells from this super-secret stockpile, did the terrorists use it exactly as you would a conventional explosive, and completely waste it?
If a big super-secret horde of these shells exists, why were the PEOPLE WHO GOT THE SHELL FROM THE STOCKPILE unaware of what they were carrying?
Why did they chose a binary agent shell, the least common of chemical weapon shells, in particular as it would be even LESS useful than a unitary Sarin shell?
Why has there been a grand total of one of these things used in the last year, even is used completely improperly?
Considering your theory has ben rejected by the people on the scene who would know, and considering the complete illogic and lack of any evidence whatsoever of your claim, how can you stand by it?
Can you provide us with even the tiniest, single scrap of anything resembling evidence which shows that your conspiracy theory is based in any kind of reality?
As I said, if you are going to propose some big conspiracy theory that:
-makes no sense
-has no supporting evidence
-is not accepted by everyone in a position to know in the field
then you have to provide a shred of evidence, anything really, anything at all... to back it up. I say again, idle speculation about how this MIGHT have come froma super-secret massive pile of similarily unmarked gas shells hidden somewhere in the desert not discovered by UN inspectors or US search teams is literally fiction unless you can provide even the slightest bit of evidence that its possible. The US military disagrees with you, they seem confident it is an isolated accident. Why are you so sure?
QUOTE
So there's only one shell is what you're saying?
What are the odds on that...
A war in which one of the main reasons cited were WMDs such as this sarin gas here.
Tens of thousands of tons of ammunition (they estimated in one field alone, a field that as far as the eye could see was filled with boxes of mortar shells, they estimated 10,000 shells there).
Yet, somehow those who created the IED managed to unknowingly salvage the only chemical weapon shell in the ammunition dumps...
What are the odds on that...
A war in which one of the main reasons cited were WMDs such as this sarin gas here.
Tens of thousands of tons of ammunition (they estimated in one field alone, a field that as far as the eye could see was filled with boxes of mortar shells, they estimated 10,000 shells there).
Yet, somehow those who created the IED managed to unknowingly salvage the only chemical weapon shell in the ammunition dumps...
You logic is fatally flawed.
Firstly, there have been HUNDREDS of IEDs detonated in the last year, involving thousands of shells. Most result in little or no damage, only those that kill or main hit the media. The most common kind of IED is unexploded munitions, usually several artillery shells being remotely detonated. So your 'maths' argument does not even make any sense. Given the widespread use of these shells, that one eventually would be a sarin shell if there were saril shells lost in the pile is not only possible, it is almost inevitable.
Secondly, no I am not saying there is only one shell. The mistake of marking which caused this one to get lost could easily have been repeated, there could be other shells out these lost in the stocks of shells prepared by the Iraqi military.
Thirdly, the fact that 'there must be stockpiles because Sarin was used as an excuse to start the war' is completely silly. So was nuclear weapons preparations, and biological weapons. So was active chemical weapons production facilities. NONE of those have been found at all, and the WMD argument had largely been discarded even by the right wing. Even if that were not the case, it is circular logic: There must be WMD because we said there were WMD because there must be WMD.
Fourthly, if there exist secret stockpiles of sarin gas shells nobody has heard of or discovered despite UN inspection teams and almost a year of searching by the US military, then why, after getting one of these super-secret shells from this super-secret stockpile, did the terrorists use it exactly as you would a conventional explosive, and completely waste it?
If a big super-secret horde of these shells exists, why were the PEOPLE WHO GOT THE SHELL FROM THE STOCKPILE unaware of what they were carrying?
Why did they chose a binary agent shell, the least common of chemical weapon shells, in particular as it would be even LESS useful than a unitary Sarin shell?
Why has there been a grand total of one of these things used in the last year, even is used completely improperly?
Considering your theory has ben rejected by the people on the scene who would know, and considering the complete illogic and lack of any evidence whatsoever of your claim, how can you stand by it?
Can you provide us with even the tiniest, single scrap of anything resembling evidence which shows that your conspiracy theory is based in any kind of reality?
How about you?
Can you provide a single shred of proof that this is an isolated, fluke of an incident like you're claiming? Considering these shells are part of what Hussein declared not to have, despite the shell being the type used by him for sarin delivery, nor the fact that David Kay documented a long list of cover-up in regards to WMDS.. then unmarked shells start popping up. They were maybe lost WMDs, lost when some Iraqi official burned that single still-hot pile of documents in a file-room, or destroyed that single computer out of an otherwise untouched office, and so on..
No you can't. Neither side can provide more then speculation.
I find it funny, given your past statements that nothing short of Saddam Hussein's personal signature on these shells will pass snuff with you and others of like-mind, right?
QUOTE(keric @ May 19 2004, 04:06 PM)
Can you provide a single shred of proof that this is an isolated, fluke of an incident like you're claiming? Considering these shells are part of what Hussein declared not to have, despite the shell being the type used by him for sarin delivery, nor the fact that David Kay documented a long list of cover-up in regards to WMDS.. then unmarked shells start popping up. They were maybe lost WMDs, lost when some Iraqi official burned that single still-hot pile of documents in a file-room, or destroyed that single computer out of an otherwise untouched office, and so on..
I find it funny, given your past statements that nothing short of Saddam Hussein's personal signature on these shells will pass snuff with you and others of like-mind, right?
I find it funny, given your past statements that nothing short of Saddam Hussein's personal signature on these shells will pass snuff with you and others of like-mind, right?
Sorry, nice try but it does not work that way.
Firstly, I can and have provided significant evidence that this is just an isolated shell. The fact that you have chosen not to address it does not mean it does not exist.
First and foremost, which I seem to be repeating a lot but only because you ignore it just s much, the US military investigation, backed up by international experts, all seem in unanimity over this. From Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt on down, all agree that the terrorists likely had no idea this was a sarin shell, and that given its age and the use of it it provides NO evidence of WMD in Iraq.
I have already cited several links on this, but just to be conclusive about this, Inwill give you a few more, so there can be no doubt:
"Former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix said today that a shell containing sarin nerve gas used in an attack in Iraq was probably a stray weapon that could have been dated from the first Gulf War.
Blix said the discovery of the nerve agent was not a sign that Saddam Hussein’s regime possessed weapons of mass destruction before the war last year.
The US-led coalition used that claim to justify the invasion even though UN inspectors failed to make any significant finds before the war."
(AP - May 18th (Ireland-online))
"The former top U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay, said it was likely the shell was an old relic overlooked when Saddam said he had destroyed such weapons in the mid-1990s.
Kay, in a telephone interview with The Associated Press, said he doubted the shell or the nerve agent came from a hidden stockpile.
Former U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix, speaking to the AP in Sweden, agreed the shell was likely a stray weapon scavenged from a dump and did not signify that Iraq had large stockpiles."
(AP - May 18th (CNN))
So, we have every expert who has spoken on the subject agreeing unanimously, including US military personel on the ground. Thats just a start.
Then we have basic logic 101. If this weapon were from some super-secret stockpile of nerve agents, which was SO well hidden that it had evaded several rounds of UN inspections and a year of US search teams, how then did the insurgents have no idea what it was? This was no old ammo dump, it would have had to have been VERY well hidden to escape detection so far, yet apparently the terrorists who found and used it had no idea what it was. How is that possible?
Why in a full year of hundreds of roadside bombs and thousands of unexploded shells, not to mention tens of thousands possibly more fired by Iraq during the war itself, if this the first time any WMD shell has ever been located?
Why, when these insurgents apparently discovered this unmarked shell, identical in every easily measurable way to an HE shell, did they decide to use it in the most useless way imaginable against terrible targets? (passing vehicles?)
You say ' unmarked shells keep popping up'. Actually, in a year of intensive searching by US teams we have found nothing but false positives, this is the first chemical weapon shell except for 12 empty rusted shells found by inspectors before the war and a single empty mustard gas shell found on the street a couple weeks ago. Oh, and by the way, all those shells (also 155mm) were clearly marked as chemical rounds.
The US has been interrogating everybody under the sun, using money, coertion, and posibly (as is comng to light, but still uncertain) torture. They even have Hussein himself, and they have been using this intel to guide their many search teams which have been combing Iraq looking for any of the WMD they used to justify the war. Yet ater a year, we find one unmarked shell.
Speaking of logic, why was it unmarked and identical to HE shells? Hiding shells in an unrecoverable manner is idiotic, not to mention that a mistake in this way could cost Iraqi lives.
None of the 'conspiracy theory' you propose makes ANY sense, and you have nothing except your own isolated opinion, disagreeing with every expert in the field, right or left wing, and a significant amount of albeit circumstantial evidence to support your tale. I cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is an isolated shell, true. But I can weigh a proponderance of evidence against... absolutely nothing: that equation is pretty simple.
Unless you can give me ANYTHING at all, except your own personal universally contradicted supposition based on nothing, then I see no reason in even continuing the debate...
Vermillion wrote:
First:
Where did I bring up a conspiracy?
Lets look into this:
Red said:
This was in response to Julians:
Thus, not a conspiracy theory at all, but simply pointing out that another possibility exists.
Now, you are continuing to ignore the request for a link to back up, as fact, the following:
Your link please.
Red
QUOTE
As I said, if you are going to propose some big conspiracy theory that:
-makes no sense
-has no supporting evidence
-is not accepted by everyone in a position to know in the field
-makes no sense
-has no supporting evidence
-is not accepted by everyone in a position to know in the field
First:
Where did I bring up a conspiracy?
Lets look into this:
Red said:
QUOTE
You do understand that these are not the only ways that one might know what was in the shells?
If told that sarin was in the shells, by someone who placed the shells in a cache, then no x-ray machine or explosion would be needed.
If told that sarin was in the shells, by someone who placed the shells in a cache, then no x-ray machine or explosion would be needed.
This was in response to Julians:
QUOTE
In the absence of portable X-Ray machines and sophisticated detection equipment (admittedly an assumption that might be incorrect), they surely would have to explode ALL the shells they find and hope that some of them have sarin inside?
Thus, not a conspiracy theory at all, but simply pointing out that another possibility exists.
Now, you are continuing to ignore the request for a link to back up, as fact, the following:
QUOTE
This was no test, it was an accident that a chemical weapon warhead was lost among conventiona weapons, and nobody, not even those who tried to set it off to blow up a convoy, had any idea what it really contained...
Your link please.
Red
Once again you are arguing semantics, as opposed to dealing with any pertinent parts of my post.
I never claimed there was a conspiracy, I said you are putting forward a conspiracy theory. You can tell that because you kindly quoted the line where I said that. But even if you were not wrong on this... so what?
PLEASE try and deal with some of the actual issues up for debate.
Now this is getting frustrating to the extreme. Again the irrelevant semantics, not actually dealing with the issues or points I raise.
Of COURSE I have no link for that conclusion. It is a conclusion based on cited and sourced evidence which back it up easily. I posted several links to the evidence I used, which you ignored. What is the point of you repeating this request again and again? You seem like an intelligent person, surely you could not have helped but notice how I posted evidence, sourced it, then drew a conclusion. You seem to not be able to supply any evience for your conspiracy theory, while singularily ignoring any I put forward. How does that tactic advance the debate at all?
ONCE AGAIN, even if your repeated request were not irrelevant and missing the point, SO WHAT?
PLEASE TRY and deal with the points I make and a few of the issues up for debate rather than fixating on semantics and ignoring the issue.
QUOTE
Where did I bring up a conspiracy?
I never claimed there was a conspiracy, I said you are putting forward a conspiracy theory. You can tell that because you kindly quoted the line where I said that. But even if you were not wrong on this... so what?
PLEASE try and deal with some of the actual issues up for debate.
QUOTE
Now, you are continuing to ignore the request for a link to back up, as fact, the following:
Your link please.
Your link please.
Now this is getting frustrating to the extreme. Again the irrelevant semantics, not actually dealing with the issues or points I raise.
Of COURSE I have no link for that conclusion. It is a conclusion based on cited and sourced evidence which back it up easily. I posted several links to the evidence I used, which you ignored. What is the point of you repeating this request again and again? You seem like an intelligent person, surely you could not have helped but notice how I posted evidence, sourced it, then drew a conclusion. You seem to not be able to supply any evience for your conspiracy theory, while singularily ignoring any I put forward. How does that tactic advance the debate at all?
ONCE AGAIN, even if your repeated request were not irrelevant and missing the point, SO WHAT?
PLEASE TRY and deal with the points I make and a few of the issues up for debate rather than fixating on semantics and ignoring the issue.
We are kind of straying a bit here from the original (and poorly worded) question I raised for discussion.
Are we about to find out what happened to Iraq's WMD the hard way, or is this an aberration?
I was actually more interested in the possibility that this was a serious escalation in the insurgency efforts against our troops as we approach the 30June deadline than I was in whether or not this shell was the "smoking WMD gun". Probably shouldn't even have used the WMD term.
In any case, I watched the Senate testimony of Generals Abizaid and Sanchez this morning and the question about how they view this shell came up. Both of them said that they didn't think this was a sign of escalation and they thought the use of this shell was purley accidental. However, they are taking nothing for granted here and Gen Sanchez assured the Senate that our troops are equipped and trained to deal with a Bio-Chem attack if indeed this sort of thing starts happening. They aren't taking any chances and they're not taking anything for granted on this. I think this is a prudent course of action on their part.
Are we about to find out what happened to Iraq's WMD the hard way, or is this an aberration?
I was actually more interested in the possibility that this was a serious escalation in the insurgency efforts against our troops as we approach the 30June deadline than I was in whether or not this shell was the "smoking WMD gun". Probably shouldn't even have used the WMD term.
In any case, I watched the Senate testimony of Generals Abizaid and Sanchez this morning and the question about how they view this shell came up. Both of them said that they didn't think this was a sign of escalation and they thought the use of this shell was purley accidental. However, they are taking nothing for granted here and Gen Sanchez assured the Senate that our troops are equipped and trained to deal with a Bio-Chem attack if indeed this sort of thing starts happening. They aren't taking any chances and they're not taking anything for granted on this. I think this is a prudent course of action on their part.
QUOTE(Aquilla @ May 19 2004, 11:01 AM)
Are we about to find out what happened to Iraq's WMD the hard way, or is this an aberration?
In any case, I watched the Senate testimony today of Generals Abizaid and Sanchez this morning and the question about how they view this shell came up. Both of them said that they didn't think this was a sign of escalation and they thought the use of this shell was purley accidental. However, they are taking nothing for granted here and Gen Sanchez assured the Senate that our troops are equipped and trained to deal with a Bio-Chem attack if indeed this sort of thing starts happening. They aren't taking any chances and they're not taking anything for granted on this. I think this is a prudent course of action on their part.
In any case, I watched the Senate testimony today of Generals Abizaid and Sanchez this morning and the question about how they view this shell came up. Both of them said that they didn't think this was a sign of escalation and they thought the use of this shell was purley accidental. However, they are taking nothing for granted here and Gen Sanchez assured the Senate that our troops are equipped and trained to deal with a Bio-Chem attack if indeed this sort of thing starts happening. They aren't taking any chances and they're not taking anything for granted on this. I think this is a prudent course of action on their part.
Agreed. Just because there was an unmarked shell containing sarin gas does not therefore mean that there was a post-Gulf War WMD program. Furthermore, it's hard to derive a pattern based on a single incident. I certainly hope that there are no more of these shells out there. You can bet that the insurgents who do have more artillery shells will now be looking for the "special" ones.
In my opinion, it is only a matter of time before insurgents/terrorists start using gas and the like. In particular, it's not that difficult to create sarin or mustard gas. Remember the Aum Shakur (sp?) cult in Japan. If and when authority is handed over to the Iraqis and the US moves to military bases that are not inside the cities themselves, then I fully expect the insurgents/terrorists will start using gas weapons on those military basis.
Vermillion:
And again I ask where I was "putting forth a conspiricy theory"?
I did. Please go back to my original post that YOU tried to pick apart. YOU were the one that first said that I brought a conspiracy into this, then, appear to back away once I BROUGHT the appropriate quotes forward. Lets be straight about this.
Next, YOU made the statement that you had evidence that those shells were not (as fact, without qualification) placed in position with knowlege of what were in them.
I asked for the evidence and you provided quotes that almost all contained qualification. Nothing shows evidence that they (those that placed the device) COULD NOT HAVE known what was in the shells. So the possibility still exists that they DID. Unless you have a statement that they (the culprits) did not know, then you can not claim the fact.
How does this relate to the question at hand?
Read the first line of the post that lead to this!
QUOTE
I never claimed there was a conspiracy, I said you are putting forward a conspiracy theory.
And again I ask where I was "putting forth a conspiricy theory"?
QUOTE
PLEASE try and deal with some of the actual issues up for debate.
I did. Please go back to my original post that YOU tried to pick apart. YOU were the one that first said that I brought a conspiracy into this, then, appear to back away once I BROUGHT the appropriate quotes forward. Lets be straight about this.
Next, YOU made the statement that you had evidence that those shells were not (as fact, without qualification) placed in position with knowlege of what were in them.
I asked for the evidence and you provided quotes that almost all contained qualification. Nothing shows evidence that they (those that placed the device) COULD NOT HAVE known what was in the shells. So the possibility still exists that they DID. Unless you have a statement that they (the culprits) did not know, then you can not claim the fact.
How does this relate to the question at hand?
Read the first line of the post that lead to this!
QUOTE
it's a tough question to answer.
QUOTE(redliner1989 @ May 19 2004, 06:20 PM)
YOU were the one that first said that I brought a conspiracy into this, then, appear to back away once I BROUGHT the appropriate quotes forward. Lets be straight about this.
Just to clarify, if you willfully misinterpret something I say, and then I correct you, its not me 'backing away', its me setiing you back on the right path. I could say moe about the willful misinterpretation, but as this thread is coming dangrously close to flaming already, I will forebear.
QUOTE
Nothing shows evidence that they (those that placed the device) COULD NOT HAVE known what was in the shells. So the possibility still exists that they DID.
Is this seriously the point you are left with?
Is the point you are trying to put forward that:
-no matter how unlikely, or how much evidence there is, or how little it makes sense otherwise, or how unanimous expert opinion seems to be on the matter... no matter ALL of that it is TECHNICALLY possible IN THEORY that there was a CHANCE that the terrorists MIGHT have POSSIBLY known what was in the shell, even though their actions demonstrate they did not?
Well then, yes you win. As I am not one of the terrorists who planted the bomb, I admit there is a chance, no mater how small, that the terrorists were simply all completely retarded, and they knew it was a Sarin shell even though thair actions demonstrate they did not. It is POSSIBLE that their actions are explained by them all being terribly stupid, rather than simply unaware of the content of the shell.
I cannot deny the possibility exists, no matter the probability.
Now then, you have failed to provide even a shred of evidence of any kind, or any expert who agrees, or any answers to the innumerable logical fallacies with your theory, but lacking divine intuition I cannot deny the possibility that your theory might be correct.
Is that really the point you were trying to make? If I may be so bold, why bother?
ClOSED: This thread has had several warnings, and the condescension has got to stop. Everyone needs to take a step back and take a deep breath. There is absolutely no reason that we should not be able to have civil debates even with those who are ideologically different from ourselves.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.