[billbears]

No the terrorist more than likely used an old shell. If there are traces of sarin, which have yet to be proven by more than a field test, I would say it was left over from time gone by. Of course that would be the sensible answer.

[An.American.Expatriate]

traces of sarin in an "old round" would NOT cause the soldiers to become ill - AND - if you had been following this thread with ANY semblance of interest in what exactly had been ound you would know that the round contain the chemicals necessary to create sarin and the the mechanism needed to mix the chemicals [normally] is the firing of the round itself via artillery. Simply exploding the round would DESTROY the gas inside!

Of course we can't let a few pesky facts get in the way of a good denial now can we??

[jwalsh07]

there are traces of sarin, which have yet to be proven by more than a field test, I would say it was left over from time gone by. Of course that would be the sensible answer.

Here's a question for you.

How much deader can a 1 day old Binary GB 155mm arty shell make you than a ten year old Binary GB 155mm arty shell?

[txradioguy]

You're missing one important point here. Saddam and the UN said that the WMD's were completely gone from the country. They were destroyed years ago.


Now we have a Sarin laced artillery shell used in an attack on coalition forces. Mustard gas is discovered last week.

If Saddam had REALLY gotten rid of his WMD's even a field test would produce results of a B/C (biological/chemical)residue on the test paper.

So we have PROVEN that a) Saddam did NOT destroy his WMD and their modes of delivery when he said they did. And b) There are STILL WMD in the country.

And before you try to point to the lab test thingy again...BG Kimmett would NOT go on the record about the finding of positive proof of a WMD being used unless he had gotten the green light from JTF-7 which means they are CERTAIN it's Sarin.