Gas attacks in Iraq

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by Sklar, Mar 28, 2007.

  1. Sklar

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,279
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    156
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Washington state
    First and foremost, I want to make this clear, this thread is NOT about the Bush administration, whether you are pro-Bush or anti-Bush. Keep that for the other threads.

    This is how, in the past few weeks, there has been chlorine gas attacks made by the terrorists over in Iraq and what it could possibly signify for the future.

    All I want is your opinion on it. Are you guys suprised by it? Was it only a matter of time before it started? Do you see different kinds of chemical or even biological attacks happening more often?

    For me, I am suprised that it took this long for the terrorists to start using chemicals. For a country that was purported to have so many chemical weapons that it was one of the main justifications for the war and knowing that various terrorist organizations have been wanting to get their hands on some, for me, it was only a matter of time before they were used.

    I honestly expected them to start being used almost right after the President declared "mission accomplished." That it took this long for them to start using them is kind of shocking. All it takes is one chemical or even biological weapon to be mortared into the green zone for there to be massive casualties.

    What I can see the terrorist organizations doing is using Iraq as a testing ground to perfect the gas/chemical attacks so that they can be exported overseas to be used against Western nations.

    I see this as the beginning of a new and deadlier phase in this conflict. Perfect the techniques now, in Iraq, for use against America and her allies. Start with Chlorine, progress up the chemical and biological ladder, to newer and deadlier attacks.

    I am only speaking from an American perspective here folks, I don't know how the other countries are preparing for any of these kinds of attacks. Here in Seattle, once or twice a year, they do run disaster preparation drills. To be honest, they do not fill me with confidence.

    Take this scenario:

    Attack number 1 comes against a mall or a school. First responders arrive and start to administer to the wounded and dead. Newsreporters are all over the place. Then a second round of attacks are launched at that same location to further cripple our response efforts.

    Following up on that, once the wounded are taken to a hospital, the hospital itself is attacked. Further crippling our efforts and increasing fear and unease.

    I'm not trying to be alarmist. Honest, I'm not. It's just that I can see something like that happening. I don't see how we are really preparing for this. I see a lot of people, putting forth an honest effort, but I don't see if it is really preparing us. It's almost like they are putting on a show for the masses to placate them but not solving the real issue.

    So aside from what I said in the beginning of this thread about your opinion, what I would also like to know is if you feel your community is adequately prepared for an attack and how it would handle it.

    What are things you would recommend be implemented or things you would say needs to go? For all intents and purpose for this, you are the person the buck stops at. You are the man or woman responsible for the safety of your community. What would you do?

    So to recap the thread (because I kind of wandered off course here):

    1) This is NOT a thread about the Bush administration. THERE IS TO BE NO BUSH BASHING AND NO BUSH SUPPORTING HERE.

    2) Chemical attacks in Iraq. Are you suprised by it and what do you think it signals for the future?

    3) Your own community. Do you feel that it is adequately prepared to handle an attack? If so, how? If not, why?

    4) You are in charge. What changes would you do to keep your community safe and sound? Would you leave things as they are?

    5) Sklar reserves the right to modify the parameters of the thread as need be. :smile:

    I also want to thank everyone in advance for their contributions.


    Sklar
     
  2. madame_zora

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    10,252
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Ohio
    It was naive of us to believe they'd just roll over. Like you, I am surprised it took this long. I think this signifies a new strategy on their part, they are probably surprised we stuck it out this long. I think it can only get much worse from here, both at home and abroad.

    We've brought this on ourselves, and the world. I think we'll be paying for a long time for ordering the death of Hussein. It made some of us feel better, but it's my opinion that that little bit of feeling good will cost us greatly.

    Too late to go back in time, we're going to have to suck it up and try to find a way out without making a worse mess of things than they already are.
     
  3. FrenumFellow

    FrenumFellow New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2006
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains, USA
    The insurgents and terrorists haven't so much created chemical weapons, as they've created chemical hazards by rupturing large commercial chlorine gas tanks. They even made the mistake of doing so with such a large and unfocused explosion, so that the chlorine was mostly burned up or dissipated, and the casualties were actually caused by the explosion and not the gas. It really has almost nothing to do, for instance, with creating a genuine chemical weapon that could be projected over a distance, say into a compound, and cause significant casualties from the spread of the chemical gas itself.

    I don't see any sign of al-Qaeda like sophistication in attempting to develop more advanced weapons. It's just crude old-fashioned terror, evolving slowly by trial and error to utilize simple materials at hand.


    FF
     
  4. ETA123

    ETA123 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2006
    Messages:
    194
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Thank you for making a very important point. Blowing up of existing commercial tanks of chlorine is NOT the same as using weapons of mass destruction. It's nowhere near the sophistication, and, for that matter, causes less burning and suffering that some of the white phosphor rounds used by our own military.

    While reprehensible, it does not rise to the level of using a real "chemical weapon" and does not, in any way, cause any concern for me as to future use of chemical or biological weapons. Laboratory prepared weapons are a far cry from picking up unguarded industrial or commercial chemicals.
     
  5. Onslow

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    3

    I am in no way surprised. I have actually been awaiting something of this sort for quite some time. Now, whereas some are unconcerned about chlorine attacks; I think there is a failure to see the bigger picture. Chlorine attacks--or anything of similar nature which is not as deadly--produces certain results for terrorists. They get to see how exactly people will react. What sort of emergency response systems and contingency plans are in place. Further, after making an attack of a less dangerous chemical; people will develop a false sense of security. A generalized apathy (more than the one currently in existance) will envelope the nation. A belief that the chemicals used are the worst that 'they' can find to attack us with. The nation drops its guard and is unprepared for the next attack which contains either a more deadly chemical--one which does not evaporate rapidly--or a viral attack.

    Meanwhile the government decides that the low-level chemicals really were all that the enemy ever had and so there is no longer a need for wide spread concern--or any concern--and security measures are weakened, emergency response systems are dismantled.

    In all actuality, no community is really ready for these attacks. The attacks come in fast and hard, there is no time to get clear of the immediate danger zone. If a dozen 80 gallon drums of deadly chemicals are detonated in the hub of a major city during rush hour, how many can truly escape? If at that same instant, the nearest medical facilities are also attacked--with the chemicals being released in the entry area of the emergency room, thus killing doctors, nurses and of course patients--what chance will there really be?


    The bottom line is there will always be a level of risk out there and we have the option of going about in constant dread or of being aware and ready to do what little we can--which as I have stated, is very little. Chemicals are easy to obtain, easy to place and with easily manufactured detonators, chemicals are easily released into the atmosphere. Well, we all have to go sometime, hopefully it will be a swift release from earthly life.


    Maybe we will luck out and global warming will get us first--
     
  6. D_Humper E Bogart

    D_Humper E Bogart New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,226
    Likes Received:
    2
    Wait, are Iraqis suddenly attacking the US mainland or is the Chickenshit syndrome just passing through?

    Chemical weapons, I mean real chemical weapons, the kind of shit that more than 90% of the world's population couldn't produce without a laboratory and a staff of dozens aren't produced by nutjobs with AK47s!

    Now attacking with chemicals is pretty easy, go to your nearest garage, find anything that says "dangerous acid" or similar, and throw it at someone. There you go, I've just told you how to nuclearfy the world!
    -Not.

    Now I ain't undermining the threat of someone doing the equivalent of pissing into the tea on a horrible scale. That is a sickening evil done by fucking sand-monkeys who deserve to be gas chambered.

    But don't think that they're going to start the "really" horrific gases that our nations can produce. Their stuff is going to be moronically simple, stupidly cheap and embarrasingly low-tech.
     
  7. dreamer20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,492
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    N.Providence
    I've found that drinking cups of hot mint tea are quite effective for gas attacks. One should also eat steamed vegetables as opposed to raw ones. :smile:
     
  8. madame_zora

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    10,252
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Ohio
    I think 9/11 showed us that they have no delivery systems of their own, but also that they don't mind using ours. I really have very little belief that we have accomplished much with our "homeland security" other than scaring the shit out of people.:rolleyes:

    Dreamer- you're a bad, bad man.
     
  9. dreamer20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,492
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    N.Providence
    I do recall the use of chemical weapons (and ammunition and explosives) by the U.S.A. in Iraq:

    U.S. used chemical weapons in Fallujah- Documentary -

    and Vietnam:

    Napalm


    That a segment of the Iraq populace should retaliate is not surprising.
    The sooner the troops can get out of Iraq the better.
     
  10. B_big dirigible

    B_big dirigible New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,739
    Likes Received:
    0
    Poison gas is 1915 technology. Sulfur mustard, nitrous mustard, chlorine, phosgene - old hat by now. They're still real chemical weapons, though, in the sense that they result in dead bodies lying around. You can whip up some of Saddam H's old favorite, sulfur mustard, in a bathtub, and have enough to poison, let's say, a Kurdish village or two. No stockpiles needed, no big storage tanks which can be photographed from space, or by Post reporters wandering out of the Green Zone. Hence its danger; any piss-pot tyrant can get himself some if he's allowed to. Nerve gasses are a bit more sophisticated; they didn't start arriving until 1918. Still old hat. Nerve gasses aren't so good against troops, as there are antidotes - atropine shots are good, and the military probably has even better antidotes by now. But against civvies, nerve gas is great - dead bodies everywhere - so I expect any terrorist worth his salt to be making plans to use the stuff. Chlorine is more spectacular, though. It lies close to the ground and kills nearly everything - grass, bushes, insects, animals, people. Not trees, though, as their leaves tend to be too high, and chlorine stays low. Sheltering underwater works, but stay away from the surface, as chlorine + water = hydrochloric acid.

    Some of the famous ones, like, say, Zyklon B, aren't classified as poison gasses, even though they are. Zyklon B was an insecticide, stored as solid crystals which sublimate in air. The resulting gas is deadly in a confined space, such as a gas chamber.
     
  11. SpeedoGuy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,229
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Not surprised but not really worried either. I don't think gas represents a deadlier new phase in Iraq or anywhere. Victims of terrorism die from gunshots, roadside bombs, anthrax, fire, airplanes rammed into buildings or chlorine gas poisoning.

    There's quite a low threat that Islamic terrorists are going to infiltrate rural counties in Oregon to mortar schools and city halls with crude chlorine gas. There's a much, much greater chance of rural schoolkids being poisoned or shot if they accidentally encounter an active meth lab on the outskirts of town. Homegrown terrorism, if you will.

    Recognize legtimate threats to public safety and take reasonable precautions without exaggerating miniscule threats. See example above.

    Then I reserve the right to modify my responses as need be.
     
  12. FrenumFellow

    FrenumFellow New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2006
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains, USA
    Sorry, but this used to be one of my areas of specialty, and the idea that the US is using anything that could genuinely be considered chemical weapons is just a propaganda fabrication.

    And even if there were some justification for retaliation, it wouldn't carry over to using such means in indiscriminate attacks in crowded civilian areas.

    The US and its forces have done a few inexcusable things, but the insurgency, like Hussein's brutal regime, makes standard practice of atrocity and crimes against humanity.


    FF
     
  13. stretcher74

    stretcher74 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2006
    Messages:
    242
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    17
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    Blowing up a chlorine truck doesn't seem to represent, so-called a dangerous new phase of the conflict to me. As stated here, we aren't talking about weaponized chemicals, more a bunch of murder-bent jihadis picking whatever is on hand or nearby to strike out at their fellow Sons of Allah who break their eggs on the wrong end. The results of these attempted chemical attacks have been unspectacular to say the least. It does show some willingness to improvise though.

    That said the situation in Iraq is deeply and profoundly FUCKED UP and it is the Fault of the Chimp in Chief G.W.B. Absent strongman-Saddam, and with the deficient moral education of Islam in place in the general population, these people want to have a fucking civil war of the nastiest kind. It will not end untill what was formerly Iraq has a new murdering strongman or strongman for each ethnic group/region with a million dead under his belt. It's going to look like Afghanistan after the Soviets left on a bigger scale untill then.

    All the US Army can do is delay the fighting in earnest and keep the Kurds from getting totally raped, and the US population is getting understandably tired of footing the bill in lives and money. Time to declare victory over Saddam(whoopie) and take the troops out. The US should shoot that fat fucker Al-Sadr in the face on the way out of town for revenge and as a general service to the human race.

    At this point the US would have more leverage in Iraq selling small-arms to preferred civil-war factions. Proceeds of the sales could go to bombing Iran's reactor (which actually is capable of making WMDs)
     
  14. B_NineInchCock_160IQ

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,378
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    where the sun never sets

    Am I the only one who took offense at this?
     
  15. rawbone8

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    2,864
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Toronto (ON, CA)
    No Ryan, you are not alone.
     
  16. D_Humper E Bogart

    D_Humper E Bogart New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,226
    Likes Received:
    2
    Big Drig, the real point is, "Coud one make a chemical weapon?" The world's first muclear bombs were apparently tennis ball sized, but it doesn't mean that I could create a device that plunges two lumps of half critical mass together...

    Even chemical warfare is not something that the Anarchist's cookbook does reliably.

    I fear that we're giving the "average insurgent" far too much credit. Now hard core 'trained' terrorists are something to fear, but most of Iraq is just like the typica ghetto in modern cities: too many dark people with guns.

    Oh and IRT any compaints about me being racially 'nasty' "Boo hoo we've invaded Iraq because we love Iraqi people and can't stand to see them suffer!!"

    Won't oil prices ever go down?!
     
  17. Rikter8

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    Messages:
    4,488
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    51
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    MI
    Geeze, I read this title, and here I thought the Military sent over another batch of bad beans
     
Draft saved Draft deleted