Artillery Shell with Sarin Found in Iraq (saw on Fox)

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-05-17 10:35am

I saw it on Fox news, so disclaimers apply...

Some idiots made an IED out of a sarin shell, and it exploded, causing a small dispersal. Apparently no one was hurt, but I would have loved to see the bomber caught up in his own death cloud.

MPEGS at 11...

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-05-17 10:36am

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2938462 <== Confirmation of story found on Google News...

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-05-17 10:37am

"Right, Ahmed. The Infidels will drive over this bomb concealed next to the road and set off this pressure trigger. Got that?"

"Yes, sir. This pressure trigger here, yes?"

"DON'T PRESS THA..."

*American convoy passes by ten minutes later and sees random terrorist bodies on their backs for no evident reason*

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-05-17 10:41am

San Francisco Gate
it's all over the web now

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-05-17 10:46am

So I take it some terror group set up the bomb on the road?

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-05-17 11:32am

This is news why?

Currald · Post by **Currald** » 2004-05-17 11:35am

Presumably we are supposed to consider this to be a "weapon of mass-destruction" or something?

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-05-17 11:39am

Currald wrote:Presumably we are supposed to consider this to be a "weapon of mass-destruction" or something?

This is what some people are trying to sell it as. Some guy on CNN was suggesting that terrorists happened upon one of the supposed Saddam stockpiles, then (poorly)rigged the shell as a bomb. Silly people.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-05-17 11:41am

Hamel wrote:
This is what some people are trying to sell it as. Some guy on CNN was suggesting that terrorists happened upon one of the supposed Saddam stockpiles, then (poorly)rigged the shell as a bomb. Silly people.

They're crawling out of the woodwork already? Pathetic. This is the same brand of stupid that saw people citing a box of empty mustard shells sitting covered in a decade's worth of bird-shit in an abandoned hangar as proof of Iraqi NBC stockpiles ....

Needless to say, that this 155mm sarin shell had absolutely no effect on the convoy it detonated near save for minor exposure to two persons, is perfectly consistent with UNMOVICs report that Iraq's sarin was of low quality and unlikely to be a viable weapon by 2003.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-05-17 12:04pm

Hamel wrote:
Currald wrote:Presumably we are supposed to consider this to be a "weapon of mass-destruction" or something?
This is what some people are trying to sell it as. Some guy on CNN was suggesting that terrorists happened upon one of the supposed Saddam stockpiles, then (poorly)rigged the shell as a bomb. Silly people.

the alternative scenerio would be that they found someone who is willing and able to produce/supply them with Sarin. I fucking hope it is some leftover shell from Saddam and not the alternative.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-05-17 12:13pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:
Hamel wrote:
Currald wrote:Presumably we are supposed to consider this to be a "weapon of mass-destruction" or something?
This is what some people are trying to sell it as. Some guy on CNN was suggesting that terrorists happened upon one of the supposed Saddam stockpiles, then (poorly)rigged the shell as a bomb. Silly people.
the alternative scenerio would be that they found someone who is willing and able to produce/supply them with Sarin. I fucking hope it is some leftover shell from Saddam and not the alternative.

The SFGate article stated that it was a 'binary' type shell, so I doubt if it was anything but a forgotten relic of Saddam's time.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-05-17 12:15pm

Currald wrote:Presumably we are supposed to consider this to be a "weapon of mass-destruction" or something?

I'd hardly consider it to be a WMD since it was far less destructive than a regular 155mm shell, and the sarin was apparently badly degraded. Don't expect this fact to stop Shrubby having a WMDgasm anyway...

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2004-05-17 12:56pm

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:I'd hardly consider it to be a WMD since it was far less destructive than a regular 155mm shell, and the sarin was apparently badly degraded.

It does fit the definition, since it is a chemical round. The question becomes where did the insurgents obtain the round, and are there more where that one came from?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-05-17 01:18pm

jegs2 wrote:
Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:I'd hardly consider it to be a WMD since it was far less destructive than a regular 155mm shell, and the sarin was apparently badly degraded.
It does fit the definition, since it is a chemical round. The question becomes where did the insurgents obtain the round, and are there more where that one came from?

Yes, and it was so old and of such low grade that it couldn't even match conventional weapons in terms of damage capacity. Is this Saddam's stockpile of WMDs which were imminently threatening the US?

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2004-05-17 01:23pm

Durandal wrote:Yes, and it was so old and of such low grade that it couldn't even match conventional weapons in terms of damage capacity. Is this Saddam's stockpile of WMDs which were imminently threatening the US?

Assuming as any third-grade child would that there are more than just the single round that was detonated, that is a good question. Perhaps we shall find out.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-05-17 01:31pm

jegs2 wrote:
Durandal wrote:Yes, and it was so old and of such low grade that it couldn't even match conventional weapons in terms of damage capacity. Is this Saddam's stockpile of WMDs which were imminently threatening the US?
Assuming as any third-grade child would that there are more than just the single round that was detonated, that is a good question. Perhaps we shall find out.

If there are more, they would be in similar condition: near-useless relics. Not what the US claimed Saddam had.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2004-05-17 01:57pm

Darth Wong wrote:If there are more, they would be in similar condition: near-useless relics. Not what the US claimed Saddam had.

From what I understand, the round that was detonated had containers for two separate chemical agents that were intended to combine to create Sarin gas. The manner in which the round was detonated apparently prevented the chambers from properly mixing and releasing the chemical as intended. That leads me to believe that the insurgents likely grabbed the round from a stockpile, believing it to be a HE round. I wouldn't be surprised if those same insurgents were now feverishly looking through that stockpile to find and hide and/or destroy any other chemical rounds as quickly as they can, for the last thing they wish to do is to add legitimacy to the invasion.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2004-05-17 02:11pm

If it is manufactured recently it's news, otherwise it's junk.

Luzifer's right hand · Post by **Luzifer's right hand** » 2004-05-17 03:04pm

bbc article

The article on bbc suggests that the bomb was a relict from the Iran-Iraq war.

However, a senior coalition source has told the BBC the round does not signal the discovery of weapons of mass destruction or the escalation of insurgent activity.

He said the round dated back to the Iran-Iraq war and coalition officials were not sure whether the fighters even knew what it contained.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-05-17 05:13pm

What a shocker.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-05-17 05:30pm

Hmm, this does raise some questoins......why was the shell marked as
a non-gas round? I doubt saddam did that for shits and giggles.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-05-17 06:18pm

Luzifer's right hand wrote: The article on bbc suggests that the bomb was a relict from the Iran-Iraq war.

Saddam never deployed Sarin during that war, just Mustard Gas and a few
primitive nerve gases.

Luzifer's right hand · Post by **Luzifer's right hand** » 2004-05-17 06:29pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Luzifer's right hand wrote: The article on bbc suggests that the bomb was a relict from the Iran-Iraq war.
Saddam never deployed Sarin during that war, just Mustard Gas and a few
primitive nerve gases.

CIA

Iraq has the ability to produce chemical warfare (CW) agents within its chemical industry, although it probably depends on external sources for some precursors. Baghdad is expanding its infrastructure, under cover of civilian industries, that it could use to advance its CW agent production capability. During the 1980s Saddam had a formidable CW capability that he used against Iranians and against Iraq's Kurdish population. Iraqi forces killed or injured more than 20,000 people in multiple attacks, delivering chemical agents (including mustard agent and the nerve agents sarin and tabun) in aerial bombs, 122mm rockets, and artillery shells against both tactical military targets and segments of Iraq's Kurdish population. Before the 1991 Gulf war, Baghdad had a large stockpile of
chemical munitions and a robust indigenous production capacity.

The CIA says something else.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-05-17 10:34pm

MKSheppard wrote:Hmm, this does raise some questoins......why was the shell marked as
a non-gas round? I doubt saddam did that for shits and giggles.

More likely it's sheer incompetence. I think we've all seen how gruesomely disorganized Iraq's armed forces were.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2004-05-18 12:10am

To assume from the finding of a single old chemical weapon relic that Saddam had a far reaching WMD program like the Bush administration claimed is absurd. If he had, we would have found stockpiles of stuff in much better shape than this long ago.