Author Topic: AP:Iraqi Artillery Shells with WMDs Found (Read 2098 times)

lada · « **Reply #45 on:** May 17, 2004, 01:10:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
Nielsen please answer this one question.

Were there WMDs in Iraq?

I ask you this question in light of the fact that a WMD was recently detonated in Iraq.

Were there WMDs in Iraq?

Some general facts to aid you in your reply.
1) Sarin is a WMD
2) An artillery shell containing Sarin is a WMD
3) An artillery shell containing Sarin was recently detonated in Iraq.

I would very much like to hear your answer.
Thanks.

my dear you didnt get one point.
This one old 155mm shell were converted to trap bomb for Coalition soldiers.

No second shell were found.

And one more detail. It seems that they didnt know about Sarin inside untill it blow up

Reports say that bonb contained smaller that less amouth of it.

They would probably never find it if it were not blow up

Shell is dated to be from Iran-Iraq war btw.

Im still waiting on those "ready in 45 mins. WMD"

muckmaw · « **Reply #46 on:** May 17, 2004, 01:11:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
If this leads to a stockpile of thousands then the war is justified.

I don't know about thousand of shells, but a significant stockpile of at least several hundred would be enough to convince me that the war was worth fighting on the WMD premise.

As an unforseen bonus, we get to fight the Jihad All Star team on their home field, and not ours.

Lizking · « **Reply #47 on:** May 17, 2004, 01:17:46 PM »

They don't make just one. If they made one, they made a lot. The question is how many are LEFT, and where are they.

Westy · « **Reply #48 on:** May 17, 2004, 01:17:57 PM »

"Can't really see how this is crying wolf, Westy."

Ok. I'll budge. Your post did not sounded like that. It was the follow up replies that did to me. This forum has been down this road so many times in the past that both sides of the issue have knee jerk reactions and it doesn't take much to set them off

"we must ask ourselves where it came from. When we have this answer, we can make an informed decision as to whether or not it was wise to invade Iraq in the WMD Premise."

I agree 100%. To ensure that the source is found and removed from circulation. Or else could be another Tokyo subway slaughter soon - if there are indeed shells with sarin in them.

Doesn't it make one wonder why they would pass on to the press that sarin gas was detected in the bombing? If it was. They must know that the AQ forces now in-country there will leave no stone unturned to find out where that shell came from and they will look to obtain them for thier use. Or could it be a red herring to help flush out AQ and the guerrillas? To assist the enemy into exposing thier hidden cache's of regular munitions as they rummage though them looking for more of what they think are sarin shells?

Course it also could be that sarin was used in that area as a pesticide and is now showing up as the bombing is being investigated.

SirLoin · « **Reply #49 on:** May 17, 2004, 01:22:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FUNKED1
Impossible, there are no WMD or terrorists in Iraq.

Well from some who said "but really..shouldn't have invaded without a UN resolution"

I totally agree.

Hortlund · « **Reply #50 on:** May 17, 2004, 01:23:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lada
This one old 155mm shell were converted to trap bomb for Coalition soldiers.

No second shell were found.

And one more detail. It seems that they didnt know about Sarin inside untill it blow up

Reports say that bonb contained smaller that less amouth of it.

[/b]

All this points in the same direction. The terrorists thought they had a normal arty shell and rigged it as an IED. Suddenly everyone goes "oops was that a gas shell"? Do you think the terrorists might be looking a bit closer at the remaining shells in whatever ammo dump they got the first one from?

All this = very bad news.

Quote

Shell is dated to be from Iran-Iraq war btw.

Here you lie.

Quote

Im still waiting on those "ready in 45 mins. WMD"

That artillery shell was ready to be used in 1 minute, Sarin is by definition a WMD, so you have now found them.

Westy · « **Reply #51 on:** May 17, 2004, 01:24:46 PM »

"Sarin is by definition a WMD"

It's also a pesticide.

muckmaw · « **Reply #52 on:** May 17, 2004, 01:25:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Westy
"Or could it be a red herring to help flush out AQ and the guerrillas? To assist the enemy into exposing thier hidden cache's of regular munitions as they rummage though them looking for more of what they think are sarin shells?

Good point!

Pesticide??? What crops are protecting?

KNow what this is....sand...yeah...sand..

Know what grows in sand, huh, do ya?

NOTHING!!!!!

hehe..the great Sam Kinnison.

ra · « **Reply #53 on:** May 17, 2004, 01:26:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Westy
"Sarin is by definition a WMD"

It's also a pesticide.

I'd hate to see the bug that would require a 155mm shell full of sarin. Maybe Saddam was expecting an attack from Mothra.

Hortlund · « **Reply #54 on:** May 17, 2004, 01:28:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
Yes Hortlund. nobody has EVER denied that Iraq had WMD's at one point in time...whats your point?

point me to one person on this bb that has denied that Iraq has had wmd's..thx

Ok, so we finally agree. Iraq had WMDs.

You have denied it, GS has denied it, Duedel has denied it, Blitz denied it, in fact most of the anti-war crowd has denied that Iraq had WMDs.

Now that they are found, the message has been transformed to "ok, so they had SOME, but that STILL doesnt count".

If the US forces found an Iraqi B-29 on a runway, fueled and ready with engines warming up and a nuclear bomb named "FAT MAN" in the bomb bay, AND a flight plan to New York, you guys would still say But you said weapons of mass destruction, what you have found is one weapon.

Frankly I think you anti war types are idiots.

Westy · « **Reply #55 on:** May 17, 2004, 01:33:51 PM »

"I'd hate to see the bug that would require a 155mm shell full of sarin."

Not much of a bug for all the damage this "155 shell filled with sarin" did.

Judging from the reaction of a few half of Baghdad should be bloating corpses in the sun by now.

Toad · « **Reply #56 on:** May 17, 2004, 01:34:23 PM »

OMG! MOTHRA!!!!!!!

I think it's a bit early to fix one's mind in cement on either side of this issue.

But go right ahead. Some of this is good...... the MOTHRA one was GREAT!

Toad · « **Reply #57 on:** May 17, 2004, 01:37:54 PM »

Westy, it's a BINARY shell. It has to be fired to mix properly.

Quote

In the case of CW a special alternative exists to this in the form of Binary Weapons. Instead of storing a CW two reactants are stored seperately and mixed en route to the target by the rotating artillery shell after just being dispatched by the cannon.

It's sorta "good" that it was used as an IED. The real danger is if it is fired normally and properly mixes.

FYI.

lada · « **Reply #58 on:** May 17, 2004, 01:38:46 PM »

ok hort, im glad you liked that whole Theatre for 1 155mm Shell, whitch is probably more that 20 years old

"It's also a pesticide."

LOL Westy it seems that sadam got us all

StabbyTheIcePic · « **Reply #59 on:** May 17, 2004, 01:39:13 PM »

MSNBC: U.S.: Roadside bomb contained sarin gas
CNN: Artillery round in Iraq emits sarin gas, U.S. military says
FOX News: Chemical Weapons Found in Iraq
BBC News: 'Nerve gas bomb' explodes in Iraq
ABC News: Bomb Containing Nerve Agent Sarin Explodes in Iraq

In my opinion, one of the above headlines is more misleading than the others.