[CurlyDave]

How do you know it wasn't brought in from outside? --JedForbes

JedForbes signed up on May 17, 2004.

[31R1O]

I noticed that too.

[Poodlebrain]

I think his question is legitimate despite his apparent political motivations.

The answer is that chemical rounds have a relatively small bursting charge meant to open the casing, the U.S. version blows off the base plate, and let the chemicals disperse over as wide an area as possible. As such, they leave behind large pieces of metal. The origin of the shell and its contents can be determined from the information markings on the recovered fragments. Let's wait and see where the round originated.

The reasons why I believe it originated in Iraq are manifold. However, the first is what foreign country would risk interception during transportation or identification after use?

The second is that if this attack was planned and executed by people with enough juice to get chemical weapons from a foreign government, then we are fighting against incompetents since the target of the attack was not nearly as valuable as the weapon used, and I don't think we a fighting incompetents. It is more likely this was an unintended use of chemicals by individuals unaware of what they were using.

There are more reasons, but I think these two are sufficient to doubt that the chemical weapons came from outside Iraq.

[gathersnomoss]

Good afternoon Jeb. Welcome to the forum. It's your ball.