Yep, pretty much.
ISIS did not just magically find the weapons. The people in isis knew where the weapons where all along.
Not only does isis have the weapons, they also have a delivery system.
Last edited:
So Isis managed to find the very chemical weapons that were our pretext for invading Iraq in the first place, that we didn't manage to find after having 100,000+ troops there for more than 12 years?
Yep, pretty much.
ISIS did not just magically find the weapons. The people in isis knew where the weapons where all along.
Not only does isis have the weapons, they also have a delivery system.
The UN said the bunker was bombed during the first Gulf war in February 1991, which removed Iraq from Kuwait, and the rockets were "partially destroyed or damaged". It said the sarin munitions were of poor quality and would largely be degraded after years of storage. It added that the tabun-filled containers were all treated with decontamination solution and likely no longer contain any agent, but "the residue of this decontamination would contain cyanides, which would still be a hazard".
Didn't isis find the chemical weapons cache from saddam?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/09/isis-seizes-chemical-weapons-plant-muthanna-iraq
.
keep reading:
These weapons appear to have a near 0% chance of functioning/being used to exact any chemical-based purpose.
The US knew about these weapons and this bunker back in 1991. As part of inspections leading up to the invasion in 2003, and throughout the US occupation of Iraq, this bunker and weapons cache was not only known, but also factored into the consideration that no chemical weapons could be found.
that's not true,,,,,sorry to burst your bubble...Most people don't even know every U.S. major city has them.
We found these weapons and all the others we KNEW they had except for a couple, anthrax and something else IIRC; we just didn't find the ones we THOUGHT they had and almost certainly never did. They are still highly dangerous, which is why they have not yet been destroyed. Iraq has to build a facility and have it certified before they can begin destroying them, else they would surely kill the workers and perhaps the general public around them. My brother-in-law works at one of the facilities which recently destroyed chemical weapons including Sarin and VX weapons manufactured just after World War II as well as some others (phosgene and mustard gases IIRC) dating from World War I - although again if I remember correctly, his facility merely dissembled and repackaged components which were actually destroyed elsewhere. Russia did the same. I think we both finished in 2012 or 2013 if memory serves. These things have a loooong shelf life, but an important part of maintaining them includes periodic inspection (X-ray IIRC) to make sure the shell hasn't corroded to the point of rupturing. With our stock, inspections were done every ten or fifteen years if memory serves and some small portion always had to be discarded. I doubt Iraqi technology in the 80s was any better than ours in the thirties, so I'd assume a significant portion of these would no longer be viable and another significant portion would fail if used conventionally. I know the CIA publicly stated that some Iraqi-manufactured Sarin (that made with Iraqi-made precursors which were less pure than the French precursors and those weapons built as pre-mixed rather than binary-stored) had an effective shelf life of no more than a few months, so it's possible that these things are much less toxic than designed.keep reading:
These weapons appear to have a near 0% chance of functioning/being used to exact any chemical-based purpose.
The US knew about these weapons and this bunker back in 1991. As part of inspections leading up to the invasion in 2003, and throughout the US occupation of Iraq, this bunker and weapons cache was not only known, but also factored into the consideration that no chemical weapons could be found.
We found these weapons and all the others we KNEW they had except for a couple, anthrax and something else IIRC; we just didn't find the ones we THOUGHT they had and almost certainly never did. They are still highly dangerous, which is why they have not yet been destroyed. Iraq has to build a facility and have it certified before they can begin destroying them, else they would surely kill the workers and perhaps the general public around them. My brother-in-law works at one of the facilities which recently destroyed chemical weapons including Sarin and VX weapons manufactured just after World War II as well as some others (phosgene and mustard gases IIRC) dating from World War I - although again if I remember correctly, his facility merely dissembled and repackaged components which were actually destroyed elsewhere. Russia did the same. I think we both finished in 2012 or 2013 if memory serves. These things have a loooong shelf life, but an important part of maintaining them includes periodic inspection (X-ray IIRC) to make sure the shell hasn't corroded to the point of rupturing. With our stock, inspections were done every ten or fifteen years if memory serves and some small portion always had to be discarded. I doubt Iraqi technology in the 80s was any better than ours in the thirties, so I'd assume a significant portion of these would no longer be viable and another significant portion would fail if used conventionally. I know the CIA publicly stated that some Iraqi-manufactured Sarin (that made with Iraqi-made precursors which were less pure than the French precursors and those weapons built as pre-mixed rather than binary-stored) had an effective shelf life of no more than a few months, so it's possible that these things are much less toxic than designed.
As far as filling a plane with them, likely that would be exactly as effective as the plane itself. To be effective, chemical agents need to be spread reasonably evenly over a large area using a means that does not destroy the chemicals. The Iraqi insurgents tried a couple times using IEDs to spread chemical heads; the blast mostly destroys them. An airliner crash would likely do so even more unless they managed to run it out of fuel, in which case we'd have contaminated ground rather than an effective Sarin attack.
I'm not any more thrilled about having chemical weapons in the hands of the Religion of Peace's most fanatical supporters than I am about having airliners there, but I'm guessing they are more likely to kill themselves than us with the former. Just because something remains highly dangerous doesn't mean it remains an effective weapon.
Yeah, I think virtually everyone now admits that we were bamboozled, and the vast majority understand it's because we wanted to hear what we were told. When you have a government that really wants to hear 'A' so that they can do 'B', and you have a bunch of ex-pats who really want us to do 'B' so they can safely go home and/or stop living in fear, you're going to be told 'A' by those ex-pats. Everyone's interests align - which REALLY sucks if one lives a block from a high value target. (Or several blocks from a high value target designated to a smart bomb built on Monday.)right, but TH, astute observer of all things that he is, claims that these are the hidden stash that we never found during the invasion and occupation.
He asserts this as evidence that ISIS found what the US never found, thus vindicating the illegal and unnecessary invasion of Iraq. Because, you know, he's into that sort of thing.
and yeah--he claims they have a delivery system...even his own article poo poohs that idea.
Yep, pretty much.
ISIS did not just magically find the weapons. The people in isis knew where the weapons where all along.
Not only does isis have the weapons, they also have a delivery system.
The honest truth is, people like isis having access to planes, chemical weapons, anti-aircraft missiles,,,, is a valid reason to be concerned.
Didn't isis find the chemical weapons cache from saddam?
-snip-
So Isis managed to find the very chemical weapons that were our pretext for invading Iraq in the first place, that we didn't manage to find after having 100,000+ troops there for more than 12 years?
Thinking about this...
Here's what (I think) they could do: force down a jet over their air space, and send up one of the missing jets to act as a sort of substitute for the other jet. I think it's possible so that air traffic in say, NYC, wouldn't be able to discern if it was an expected jet, vs. a jet with no passengers so that all the allowable cargo and passenger weight was made up of explosives.
I don't know enough about transponders to say for sure. But, are they specifically designed with the intention to avoid someone being able to copy it?You think they can get the transponder codes to match?
Maybe, but what would be the point? An airliner is a pretty darned good missile all by itself, with the added benefit (to advocates of the Religion of Peace) of taking a bunch of infidels with it. When would they benefit from using one explosive-packed airliner rather than two unpacked airliners?Thinking about this...
Here's what (I think) they could do: force down a jet over their air space, and send up one of the missing jets to act as a sort of substitute for the other jet. I think it's possible so that air traffic in say, NYC, wouldn't be able to discern if it was an expected jet, vs. a jet with no passengers so that all the allowable cargo and passenger weight was made up of explosives.
I don't know enough about transponders to say for sure. But, are they specifically designed with the intention to avoid someone being able to copy it?
right, but TH, astute observer of all things that he is, claims that these are the hidden stash that we never found during the invasion and occupation.
You think they can get the transponder codes to match?
I don't know enough about transponders to say for sure. But, are they specifically designed with the intention to avoid someone being able to copy it?
I've read that air traffic control assigns codes but I don't know how hard it would be to make a switch unnoticed. I would have thought each plane would have a unique fixed identifier, but apparently that's not the case.
Maybe, but what would be the point? An airliner is a pretty darned good missile all by itself, with the added benefit (to advocates of the Religion of Peace) of taking a bunch of infidels with it. When would they benefit from using one explosive-packed airliner rather than two unpacked airliners?
Our foreign policy is heading towards batting 100% on empowering terrorist organizations to take over entire countries in the region.
I told yall a long time ago obama is a pro-muslim president.
He may not be a muslim, but he is not going to do anything to harm terrorist organizations. The obama administration may kill a few terrorist with drone strikes, kill osama, but in the grand scheme of things isis is about to take over the middle east.
It sounds like Syria ready for the picking, Russian military equipment and everything else going to isis.
What is obama doing? Playing golf.
EDIT
How difficult would it do to strip the airliners, take out the seats, install fuel tanks and extend the range of the planes?
It is not "that" difficult to weld aluminum.
I told yall a long time ago obama is a pro-muslim president.
He may not be a muslim, but he is not going to do anything to harm terrorist organizations. The obama administration may kill a few terrorist with drone strikes, kill osama, but in the grand scheme of things isis is about to take over the middle east.
It sounds like Syria ready for the picking, Russian military equipment and everything else going to isis.
What is obama doing? Playing golf.
EDIT
How difficult would it do to strip the airliners, take out the seats, install fuel tanks and extend the range of the planes?
It is not "that" difficult to weld aluminum.