Sarin Gas Found in Iraq

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

Quote:

---

"It was a weapon we believed was stocked from the ex-regime time," Kimmitt said. "It had been thought to be an ordinary artillery shell, set up like an IED. When it exploded, it indicated that it had some sarin in it."

The general said the Iraqi Survey Group, headed by Charles Duelfer, would determine if the shell's discovery indicated Saddam possessed chemical weapons before the U.S. invasion last year. Officials in Washington said another shell -- this one containing mustard gas -- was found 10 days ago in Iraq.

---

Uh... I don't get it. If it was a terrorist attack, why that supposition that weapon belonged to Saddam's regime before it was used by the terrorist? As far as I know, it could come from anywhere, the terrorists come from various countries (Do you remember when, before the war, several men from other countries came?).

I don't believe a bomb used by a terrorist is enough evidence, they should at least find the place where all that gas is supposedly being stored. I bet they will, just a week before the elections :D

EDIT: By the way, when is the exact date of the elections?

lol george w bush is so screwed he is gonna jump at any chance to try and say "WE FOUND WMD, I WAS RIGHT".

to be honest though i,m very surprised he has not planted some of the usas own WMD in iraq and then claim it was Saddams. hes had enough time, maybe he is too thick. then again that woulnt really help him prove he "liberated" Iraq.

Short of finding a box of anthrax with Saddam's portrait and signature on it, I don't think most people are ever going to be convinced now. The search for the truth is all but abandoned, at this point.

By the way, when is the exact date of the elections? --Shadow Nexus

First Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

to be honest though i,m very surprised he has not planted some of the usas own WMD in iraq and then claim it was Saddams. hes had enough time, maybe he is too thick. then again that woulnt really help him prove he "liberated" Iraq. --aeris2001x2

I really have trouble telling when people are being serious and when they're exaggerating to attempt to make some kind of a point. That's about the most polite comment I can make.

lol i was doing a bit of both actually.

Eh, I don't think proving Saddam had weapons would have any effect anymore, even though it would make for a good "I told you so!" It's grown beyond that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rei

Eh, I don't think proving Saddam had weapons would have any effect anymore, even though it would make for a good "I told you so!" It's grown beyond that.

---

Oh, I think it would give him quite a bunch of votes. In fact and as said, I would not be surprised if there was some crappy "we found the WMDs" or a "we say we found the WMDs" just before the elections.

As an example, did you know the party governing in Spain before the elections two months ago knew where all the big bosses of the terrorist group ETA where? They planned on arresting them the day before the elections. Then the Al Quaeda bomb exploded, and they tried to put the blame on ETA, because if it was Al Quaeda they would not get elected again. Just a little example of how absolutely pathetic can some people be to get a few votes. It's funny how they tell use we actually take descisions in a democracy. We don't, we're just a piece of :love: they need to conserve their power every four years.


And I went off topic.

No need to swear. --Unne

to be honest though i,m very surprised he has not planted some of the usas own WMD in iraq and then claim it was Saddams. hes had enough time, maybe he is too thick. then again that woulnt really help him prove he "liberated" Iraq. -aeris

I would not be surprised if there was some crappy "we found the WMDs" or a "we say we found the WMDs" just before the elections. -Nexus

we're just a piece of :love: they need to conserve their power every four years. -Nexus


Then again maybe our national leaders have morals.

..OMG NO! THATS NOT WHAT MTV/COMEDY CENTRAL/ OUR RATING HOGGING MEDIA TELLS US! THEY SAY BUSH IS A DUMB REDNECK!

It's funny how the majority of our nation vote on someone to lead us, then talk about how much of an idiot they are.

Sorry guys i dont mean to offend, im a mild mannered, shy, "oh its ok" person irl. It just gets me steamed, i mean they are our leaders.......respect? If USA was dictator ruled (heaven forbid) you would have some people knocking at your door with rifles.

I think they have to find more than a keg of sarin, that they COULD have fabricated easily enough, to justify the war in Iraq.

No we did not go in to help the Iraqi people.

Quote:

---

..OMG NO! THATS NOT WHAT MTV/COMEDY CENTRAL/ OUR RATING HOGGING MEDIA TELLS US! THEY SAY BUSH IS A DUMB REDNECK!

---

-TasteyPies

Really well they tell me much different they tell me that th world is a better place now and im safer, and a bunch of other crap like jobs r being created, well thats great until u add in the 4 million lost... sorry got off topic...

"Sorry guys i dont mean to offend, im a mild mannered, shy, "oh its ok" person irl. It just gets me steamed, i mean they are our leaders.......respect? If USA was dictator ruled (heaven forbid) you would have some people knocking at your door with rifles."

Not saying Bush is a dictator, though he wasn't elected by the People, but by the Courts, but I have a hard time respecting ANY leader who doesn't take responsibility for his or her actions, be you Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Fascist, what have you.

To get back to the topic of this thread:

Two shells don't equal WoMD for me. Yes, Chemical weapons are in Iraq but, I wouldn't be surprised if there are Chemical weapons in Greenland in this day and age.

To me, the more important piece of info is the first half of what DocFrance's article said. How stable can this country be? Who's to say that the entire council won't be killed by terrorists if power is transferred? How will free elections even occur if the leaders aren't protected? I really have my doubts as to whether this transfer of power is going to lead anywhere but a Civil War, which will only mean more death, US occupation and an endless cycle with no real progress.

Take care all.

i dont vote for any leaders cause my vote wont make a difference but also because there all the same in my eyes. i know thats a cliche but all they want is power.

plus i hate the fact that are we told we live in a democracy. we dont, i,m sick of that illusion being perpetuated.

anyway, i,m actually more annoyed at my "leader", tony blair, because at least george bush can be forgiven for his actions cause of his stuipdity.

and yes while of course i,m not going to escape influence from all the propaganda everywhere, i make up my own mind on the situation.

Quote:

---

Then again maybe our national leaders have morals.

---

:laugh:

Quote:

---

..OMG NO! THATS NOT WHAT MTV/COMEDY CENTRAL/ OUR RATING HOGGING MEDIA TELLS US! THEY SAY BUSH IS A DUMB REDNECK!

---

I don't watch TV, I read the newspapers, and books. Newspapers mean El Pais and La Vanguardia, and books mean Habermas, Rousseau and Kant, not conspiracy theories about how Kennedy was killed. So no, I don't know what MTV or Comedy Central say.

Quote:

---

It's funny how the majority of our nation vote on someone to lead us, then talk about how much of an idiot they are.

---

See...I don't vote them. In fact, I am not even democratic. And I don't like Bush, nor Rumsfeld, nor Condolezza nor any of the other maniacheist chauvinists in the White House, and I say it. Do you expect me to shut up and never denounce what they do? So you are advocating for blind submission to power, firm obedience? Never doubting their actions? As said, I am surprised there has still not been a fraud regarding WMD. Why? Well, they lied to start the war, and back in 1991 Papa Bush also organized some lies, such as archive images of ecologic disaster and a girl lying about how iraqi soldiers killed babies. And you expect me to believe them in everything they tell me? Thanks, but no.

Quote:

---

It just gets me steamed, i mean they are our leaders.......respect? If USA was dictator ruled (heaven forbid) you would have some people knocking at your door with rifles.

---

Respect? For God's sake, I consider them criminals. I have no respect for criminals. Democratically elected or not.

And USA is not a dictatorship, at least not literally. It is a wonderful democracy where the power has been so accepted there is no need for rifles at the door. Say whatever you want about them, they will not need to repress you because you will simply be ignored. I believe that in modern democracies, power is absolute, as Weber (Or was it Durkheim?) said, the modern ruler of the state has more control over the state, applying modifications to the education if he wishes. But well, the problem today even tracends that, as Becks says, there is a new dimension known as subpolitics today, where companies take power from the state and act in it, since globalist ideology says that economy is in fact the arkhe of everything social and juridical in modern capitalism.

By the way, when something really may hurt power, then power acts against it. Freedom of expression? Did you know Luis Eduardo Aute was banned from singing in Puerto Rico? And thats just an example of many others. Yes, power allows criticism...to an extent, because it can hurt. Why do you believe Reagan decided to take the goverment economical help to Ray Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451"?

I don't really understand the article, like some of the others here. It'd be nice to know where it's from (and when - I don't think anyone doubts that Saddam had chemical weapons in the early nineties and before).

i mean they are our leaders.......respect? -- TasteyPies

If they were good leaders, then maybe they would have our respect. I think that both Blair and Bush have, at least, exaggerated the truth. I'd probably say they have lied to us.

That kind of behaviour doesn't lead me to respect them. I'm wary of everything they say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TasteyPies

It's funny how the majority of our nation vote on someone to lead us, then talk about how much of an idiot they are.

---

Bush was nowhere near receiving a majority of American votes. Compared to the total population of the United States during the 2000 elections, Bush received a positive vote from about 18% of Americans, which is far, far from being a majority. In fact, Bush received even less votes (49.82 million) than his competition Al Gore (50.16 million), which makes him the loser as far as the popular vote goes.

Another point to be made is that in 2000, when Bush won stole the election, he was a few years before tanking the economy, losing 3,000,000 jobs, making dozens upon dozens of empty promises and outright lies about Saddam and bin Laden, and basing wars off of this misconceptions which haved killed hundreds and hundreds of American soldiers and countless other foreign soldiers and civilians. He's definitely done enough in the past four years to deserve criticism from even those who voted for him. You see, many people see him as the idiot he is after voting for him and seeing the havoc he can cause while in office.

LH, you can't count the people who didn't vote. If you did that, virtually NO president has won a majority of American votes. You're bein' unfair.

And hey, so Bush didn't receive the popular vote. He was still elected president. I don't think he STOLE the election, because I think someone would've said something by now if Jeb managed to steal or change votes. So, he is our president, whether you like it or not, and it's a damn good bet he got it fair and square. If you don't like it, tough. That's the breaks. Stop bitchin' already.

I'll admit that Bush hasn't done a good job as President. He's made a bunch of mistakes, he's lied, or at least told half-truths, and has most of the world, if not against us, then doubting our credibility and whatnot. It's crossing the line, though, to call him an idiot. He's doin' what he feels is right. Most of us may not feel his actions are correct, but just because his beliefs and ours may conflict doesn't mean that he's an idiot. Personal attacks have no room in politics. Just vote for someone else next time. And you don't have to respect him personally, but holding the highest office in the entire Free World demands a certain amount of it. If you don't respect the man, respect the position.

And I'd have to disagree with Shadow Nexus. If the President had absolute control, or even, uh, half-absolute control, there wouldn't be people running around protestin' and whatnot, and no President would face danger from re-elections. And companies like Microsoft wouldn't be facing whatever charges they are. They may not, though; I don't really pay attention to business thingamajigs. The point is, there's too much turmoil and upheaval for anyone to have absolute control or even near it, unless there's some MASSIVE Metal Gear Solid type conspiracy that secretly controls everything. The world isn't nearly as great or as horrible as anyone thinks it is. For all the extremists out there, there are hundreds of moderates.

On a side note, my father, who was a member of the military until sometime in 2001, said that the overseas military votes weren't counted, because of a time limit, or somethin'. I don't know if he's right, but I'm inclined to believe him, because he doesn't like Bush and the military votes, with the vast majority of the military being Republican, would've helped Bush a bunch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grandmaster LH

and outright lies about bin Laden

---

No. He never lied about bin Laden. Saddam, maybe, but not bin Laden. You give me a lie (he admitted to doing 9/11), and I'll apologize, but he never lied about bin Laden.

"Personal attacks have no room in politics."

Tell that to the Politicians.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Most of us may not feel his actions are correct, but just because his beliefs and ours may conflict doesn't mean that he's an idiot.

---

I don't care what his ideology is, his actions violate basic universal, a priori, ethical laws. Thus, I cannot accept him.

Quote:

---

And I'd have to disagree with Shadow Nexus. If the President had absolute control, or even, uh, half-absolute control, there wouldn't be people running around protestin' and whatnot, and no President would face danger from re-elections. And companies like Microsoft wouldn't be facing whatever charges they are. They may not, though; I don't really pay attention to business thingamajigs. The point is, there's too much turmoil and upheaval for anyone to have absolute control or even near it, unless there's some MASSIVE Metal Gear Solid type conspiracy that secretly controls everything. The world isn't nearly as great or as horrible as anyone thinks it is. For all the extremists out there, there are hundreds of moderates.

---

The president can influence in education, sanitation, there is an archive with your name, the name of your mother, of your father and of every citizen (No, no big conspiracy, I don't know about USA, but at least in Spain there is an identification card with a number given to every citizen). The decisions of the presidents also involve the press, and you may believe media is completly free, but I have friends that work on journalism, and believe me, there is a censhorip, or at least in this country (And by looking at USA, I would not be surprised if there was this thing too). The president of a modern democratic nation has control over more things Louis XIV would have never dreamed of. That is absolut power. The way it is taken into practice, however, may differ, because they must prevent the anger of the people.

The President's power here in America has indeed increased ever since FDR, and it's only become more so with each subsequent President.

Take care all.

One sarin gas shell doesn't make a WMD stockpile.

Here's a few facts about sarin:

-a lethal dose of sarin is 1700mg for an average 70kg person
-a liter of sarin weighs 1088.7g
-they found 4 liters of sarin

So, with a little math, 4 liters of sarin is enough for... hmm... a little over two-and-a-half million lethal doses.

Just some food for thought. Feel free to check my math.

I don't know how this topic turned into a Bush thread, but whatever.

[q=Rei]LH, you can't count the people who didn't vote. If you did that, virtually NO president has won a majority of American votes. You're bein' unfair.[/q]

I was just trying to point out to that other guy that a majority of us Americans did not vote for Bush, which is contradictory to his claim that Bush received a positive vote from a majority of America.

[q=Rei]He was still elected president.[/q]

Appointed president. ;)

[q=Rei]He's made a bunch of mistakes, he's lied, or at least told half-truths, and has most of the world, if not against us, then doubting our credibility and whatnot. It's crossing the line, though, to call him an idiot. He's doin' what he feels is right.[/q]

Inversely, doing what one thinks is right does not disqualify one from being a total, utter moron. His track record speaks for itself.

And when I say moron, I'm not going by everyday standards. Compared to the average high-school dropout, no he probably isn't a moron, but next to any well-educated doctor, lawyer, or politician, he really can't hold his own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Bahamut

No. He never lied about bin Laden. Saddam, maybe, but not bin Laden. You give me a lie (he admitted to doing 9/11), and I'll apologize, but he never lied about bin Laden.

---

It's a broken promise, one that really nags at me. Do you guys remember Bush's dramatic proclaimations shortly after 9/11 to either "bring bin Laden to justice or bring justice to bin Laden" and all that other rhetoric? All the times he promised? Where is he now? Why has Bush on a few different occasions declared bin Laden to be irrelevant? Remember how hard he was going to hit bin Laden and all that crap? Why does no one call him on this? So, when Bush promised to bring bin Laden to justice and focus strictly on that task, he lied.

And you want to talk about outright lying? Read my signature for crying out loud! One of those two statements has to be a lie! So which is it? Is bin Laden tied in with Saddam or is he not? It seems like Bush picks whichever statement would help him for the moment and runs with it until it goes against his will and then he adopts another (sometimes contradictory) stance.

And just so you know, bin Laden has on several occasions denied responsibility for 9/11. The only piece of evidence that has him admitting responsibility is a tape whose authenticity is questionable. The news has ground the bin Laden-9/11 connection so thoroughly into everyone's heads that it's practically unquestionable taboo.

What? He acted against Bin Laden, he even did a war against a country to get him! :rolleyes2 Maybe he was just looking for someone to blame, someone that had a nice place for an oilduct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DocFrance

Here's a few facts about sarin:

-a lethal dose of sarin is 1700mg for an average 70kg person
-a liter of sarin weighs 1088.7g
-they found 4 liters of sarin

So, with a little math, 4 liters of sarin is enough for... hmm... a little over two-and-a-half million lethal doses.

Just some food for thought. Feel free to check my math.

---

Um. Your math is off (unless I'm being really stupid). 1700mg = 1.7g. Divide that into 4354.8 and you get roughly two and a half thousand, not million. To achieve a mortality rate with that much sarin would mean administering exactly 1.7g per person. Of course, 1700mg is not actually the size of a guaranteed lethal dose - it's the LD50, meaning that half of all doses of that size are lethal!

Quote:

---

The percutaneous 50% lethal dose (LD50) for liquid sarin is estimated at 1700 mg/70 kg man (Mioduszewski et al., 1998).

---

Bear in mind that this sarin was in a shell, which exploded. There wasn't enough to do any damage to anyone, including the people who were disarming it. You wouldn't have to be very far away from the shell for the sarin to be too diffuse to do any harm to you. If you're any closer, well, I think the fact that a shell is exploding right there in front of you is the bigger of your problems...

So basically, a shell with sarin is a chemical weapon, but hardly a weapon of mass destruction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skogs

Um. Your math is off (unless I'm being really stupid). 1700mg = 1.7g. Divide that into 4354.8 and you get roughly two and a half thousand, not million. To achieve a mortality rate with that much sarin would mean administering exactly 1.7g per person. Of course, 1700mg is not actually the size of a guaranteed lethal dose - it's the LD50, meaning that half of all doses of that size are lethal!

---

Thanks for checking. I actually made several mistakes. The first one you pointed out. Second, the lethal dosage is 1700 micrograms, and I accidentally typed it as mg (forgive me, there's no mu on my keyboard!), meaning that my original figure of 2 1/2 million was correct. Third, you're correct about the LD50 - I overlooked that. Thanks again!

No, I think your original figure was right, provided that you are using data from the site you gave. I did a full text search through all the pages and the appendix and the only instance of the number 1700 was indeed referring to the 1700mg figure (as in the quote in my previous post), not 1700µg.

Dose
(µg/kg)

Ack, whatever. The data I find on the web is all over the place. I get everything from 1700mg as a lethal dose to a fraction of that.

Anyway, any chemist worth half his salt could make sarin. Here, a BBC journalist and a London University student did exactly that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus

What? He acted against Bin Laden, he even did a war against a country to get him! :rolleyes2 Maybe he was just looking for someone to blame, someone that had a nice place for an oilduct.

---

My point was that he promised that obtaining bin Laden was priority #1. Obviously, judging from his words and actions during the last two years, he's completely forgot his promise. It seems like his war against gay marriage is even a higher priority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grandmaster LH

My point was that he promised that obtaining bin Laden was priority #1. Obviously, judging from his words and actions during the last two years, he's completely forgot his promise. It seems like his war against gay marriage is even a higher priority.

---

I must say he did do some efforts to get Bin Laden, even though I believe the war against Afghanistan was more like an espectacle than an attempt to get Bin Laden.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skogs

Ack, whatever. The data I find on the web is all over the place. I get everything from 1700mg as a lethal dose to a fraction of that.

Anyway, any chemist worth half his salt could make sarin. Here, a BBC journalist and a London University student did exactly that.

---

Still, I don't see any reason to completely dismiss this as evidence. On the other hand, this isn't exactly a smoking gun.

There's still the matter of delivering it - lobbing it at Tel Aviv, asssuming you could get it there, would probablly kill 30 people at most. It's not like they're walking around with 2 million syringes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doomgaze

There's still the matter of delivering it - lobbing it at Tel Aviv, asssuming you could get it there, would probablly kill 30 people at most. It's not like they're walking around with 2 million syringes.

---

What, you haven't heard of the PLAN (People's Liberation Army of Needles)? Very deadly.

OOC:	Happy Birthday, by the way.

I had the "good" fortune to be in NYC a few days ago when they ran a chemical weapon attack exercise in a few subways. I was shocked at how chaotic this rehearsal went, and it makes me shiver to imagine what might occur if the real thing did indeed happen.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doomgaze

There's still the matter of delivering it - lobbing it at Tel Aviv, asssuming you could get it there, would probablly kill 30 people at most. It's not like they're walking around with 2 million syringes.

---

Sarin is extremely deadly; the liquid form vapourises quickly and is extremely lethal. The Tokyo subway terrorist attack back in the mid-90s used sarin gas. A single drop of the liquid form is enough to kill a considerable number of people. One would simply need to drop a tiny vial or a plastic blister of the stuff in a busy, confined corridor and wait for a passerby to tread on it. It's really horrific.
One breath of that stuff, and you're through, basically. It prevents muscles from relaxing, so every time your muscles contract, they don't expand again. Lungs, heart, digestive tract, limbs... it truly seems like one of the worst ways to lose one's life.

We all knew Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons. Do you have any idea how many Kurds he murdered with them? Bush should know, because his father abandoned his former allies, and left Saddam in power so his son could deal with them. Why do you think Uday Hussein is known as Chemic Ali by the Kurds?

The real shocker is that everyone knew there are chemical weapons, yet the allied forces can't find them. They seem to be busy killing civilians at wedding parties.
:mad2:

Ouch, I just read about that too. However, there have been reports that this "wedding party" was in the middle of a desert with pitched tents and machine guns, so I'm not sure what to believe now.

Take care all.

Let's hope it's not true.

The BBC said 40 civilians were killed, many of them women and children. An American military spokesman (didn't catch name or rank) said they had credible 'intelligence' it was a military target. Could be another case like the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, or the Iranian passenger plane.