Skip to comments.
Islamic State seizes ex-chemical weapons facility near Baghdad
Stars and Stripes ^
| July 9, 2014
| Edith M. Lederer
Posted on 07/08/2014 10:15:52 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-35 next last
To: blueyon; KitJ; T Minus Four; xzins; CMS; The Sailor; ab01; txradioguy; Jet Jaguar; Defender2; ...
2
posted on
07/08/2014 10:16:31 PM PDT
by
Jet Jaguar
(Resist in place.)
To: Jet Jaguar
To: Jet Jaguar
Hmmm, would these be considered those pesky WMDs Iraq did not have?
4
posted on
07/08/2014 10:18:40 PM PDT
by
doug from upland
(Obama and the leftists - destroying our country one day at a time)
To: doug from upland
These are chemical weapons. Not WMD.
5
posted on
07/08/2014 10:19:34 PM PDT
by
Jet Jaguar
(Resist in place.)
To: Jet Jaguar
“could contain mustard residues which can’t be used for chemical warfare but remain highly toxic.”
Are these people retarded? Anything that is ‘highly toxic’ can be used for chemical warfare.
6
posted on
07/08/2014 10:21:34 PM PDT
by
Viennacon
(Rebuke the Repuke!)
To: Jet Jaguar
And chemical weapons can’t be WMD, tell that to the kurds.
7
posted on
07/08/2014 10:26:23 PM PDT
by
doc1019
To: Viennacon
These are not toxic!
8
posted on
07/08/2014 10:27:19 PM PDT
by
Jet Jaguar
(Resist in place.)
To: Jet Jaguar
WMD includes chemical weapons.
9
posted on
07/08/2014 10:34:12 PM PDT
by
lacrew
(Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
To: lacrew
10
posted on
07/08/2014 10:37:13 PM PDT
by
Jet Jaguar
(Resist in place.)
To: Jet Jaguar
These are chemical weapons. Not WMD. Time to stop the lies. Thousands of people are endangered now. The new Islamic State and new Caliphate in the middle east has WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. And there is no way DC can sweep that under the carpet with high school progressive semantics.
11
posted on
07/08/2014 10:51:47 PM PDT
by
justa-hairyape
(The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
To: Jet Jaguar
So in 2003, just before the US invaded with the support of John Kerry, John Edwards, and the Clintons, the UN stated that Bunker 13 contained 2,500 sarin-filled chemical rockets.
Isn’t nerve gas (sarin) a WMD? Doesn’t the anti-war crowd insist there were no WMDs? And why the hell would any Sarin or Tabun still be there 10 years later?
12
posted on
07/08/2014 10:54:00 PM PDT
by
Rainier1789
(My Constitution has a 2nd and 10th Amendment)
To: Rainier1789
13
posted on
07/08/2014 10:56:28 PM PDT
by
Jet Jaguar
(Resist in place.)
To: justa-hairyape
14
posted on
07/08/2014 10:56:52 PM PDT
by
Jet Jaguar
(Resist in place.)
To: Rainier1789
And why the hell would any Sarin or Tabun still be there 10 years later? Because the ISG sealed the entrance shut with concrete. And it was supposed to be guarded for decades. The real question is why did Obama remove US forces knowing these facilities could be overrun ?
15
posted on
07/08/2014 10:58:11 PM PDT
by
justa-hairyape
(The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
To: Jet Jaguar
Got ya. Good thing I cleaned up my response.
16
posted on
07/08/2014 10:58:46 PM PDT
by
justa-hairyape
(The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
To: Viennacon
The shells are contaminated and therefore toxic, but the mustard residue can’t be dispersed like standard mustard gas.
Don’t lick the shells and you should be OK.
17
posted on
07/08/2014 11:06:39 PM PDT
by
VanShuyten
("a shadow...draped nobly in the folds of a gorgeous eloquence.")
To: Jet Jaguar
18
posted on
07/08/2014 11:10:39 PM PDT
by
little jeremiah
(Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
To: Jet Jaguar
There are no weapons of Mass destruction in Iraq.
Oh I guess they built them while we were there.
Yeah. THat makes sense.
Oh, well, we’re too busy now watching our own country be invaded to pay attention to this creation of a jihad state.
19
posted on
07/08/2014 11:11:34 PM PDT
by
stanne
To: Jet Jaguar
More information on this story, for which I thank you. As I posted in another thread, if ISIS really wanted these sorts of weapons they just stole plenty of money to build them for themselves, which is much easier than attempting to scrounge them from a decade-old toxic waste dump.
The exception is VX. If that's involved all bets are off, but there is nothing in the news stories to suggest that it is. Perhaps no news is good news.
The irony is that after almost exactly a century of familiarity with these weapons, we've discovered their limitations - a force prepared with countermeasures is relatively safe - and their most effective use. That is as a weapon against an unprepared, i.e. civilian, population. That's what they're good for. They're terror weapons, they always were.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-35 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson