Iraq crisis: Isis jihadists 'seize Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons stockpile' - live

The strange US rhetoric that they would have difficulty bombing ISIL and defeating them stands up as pure bs when you consider they took down Libya with scattered bombing, an established country with a military, then what is so big a deal about these 10 or 12 thousand terrorist that the US can’t easily obliterate, considering they have the Iraq army to help.

This is a ridiculous equation and lends credence to the assertion that ISIL IS A US intelligence operation and asset it wants to keep going in the area.

The fact that ISIL is nothing but a US/NATO concoction is covered in this fine article below.

www.globalresearch.ca... 998
Known and documented, Al Qaeda affiliated entities have been used by US-NATO in numerous conflicts as “intelligence assets” since the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war. In Syria, the Al Nusrah and ISIS rebels are the foot-soldiers of the Western military alliance, which oversees and controls the recruitment and training of paramilitary forces. The Al Qaeda affiliated Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) re-emerged in April 2013 with a different name and acronym, commonly referred to as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The formation of a terrorist entity encompassing both Iraq and Syria was part of a US intelligence agenda. It responded to geopolitical objectives. It also coincided with the advances of Syrian government forces against the US sponsored insurgency in Syria and the failures of both the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and its various “opposition” terror brigades. The decision was taken by Washington to channel its support (covertly) in favor of a terrorist entity which operates in both Syria and Iraq and which has logistical bases in both countries. The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham’s Sunni caliphate project coincides with a longstanding US agenda to carve up both Iraq and Syria into three separate territories: A Sunni Islamist Caliphate, an Arab Shia Republic, and a Republic of Kurdistan.

originally posted by: texasyeti
? What stockpile. I was over there twice and we never found anything. This is false.

Incorrect. It isn't false. ISIS have taken over the Muthanna complex which contains sealed bunkers still housing WMD that the Iraqi's declared to the UN. Even the Iraqi authorities under Saddam and post Saddam admit and declare that the stockpile at Muthanna exists in the sealed bunkers.

12. A bunker at the storage area of the Muthanna State Establishment containing
hundreds of artillery rockets filled with nerve agents was destroyed in part through
coalition aerial bombardment in 1991. Because of the collapsed roof of the structure
it was not possible to determine the exact extent of the destruction of munitions, nor
their exact quantity (Iraq claimed that there were 2,500 munitions in the bunker). In
order to prevent further contamination of the area with nerve agents from damaged
rockets, Iraq, under the supervision of United Nations inspectors, sealed the
structure with reinforced concrete and brick walls covered with earth. In 1994, Iraq
signed a protocol with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) by
which it undertook to inspect the sealed bunker at least once a month to ensure that
the seals were intact and the warning signs were not removed, damaged or defaced.
Iraq also agreed to seek the approval of the United Nations inspectors prior to
opening or entering the bunker as long as Security Council resolution 715 (1991)
remained in force. There were also 16 other sealed structures and areas at the
Muthanna State Establishment that contained potentially hazardous items and
materials covered by the same protocol. UNMOVIC does not know whether these
procedures have been followed up by the coalition forces after the withdrawal of
UNMOVIC from Iraq in March 2003 or recently pursued by the Interim Government
of Iraq.
Empty munitions
13. According to Iraq’s declarations, in addition to munitions filled with chemical
agents, there were 98,000 munitions acquired or produced by Iraq for chemical
weapons purposes that remained unfilled up until 1991. Those empty munitions
were kept at multiple storage areas in the vicinity of the Muthanna State
Establishment under its custody and at several other military ammunition depots and
some munitions production facilities in Iraq where they had been manufactured. Of
the 98,000 munitions, 36,500 were claimed by Iraq to have been destroyed by the
coalition through aerial bombardment during the 1991 war, 29,000 were declared to
have been destroyed unilaterally by Iraq in the summer of 1991, 15,500 were
converted by Iraq to conventional munitions by filling them with high explosives in
1995 and some 17,000 munitions were declared and destroyed by Iraq under the
supervision of United Nations inspectors in the period from 1991 to 1994.
14. However, given the lack of physical evidence to support Iraq’s declarations on
the destruction of unfilled munitions by aerial bombardment and unilateral
destruction, it was not possible to finalize their coherent numerical accounting (see
S/1999/94). Thus, it was not surprising that, in the course of its inspections in Iraq
in 2003, UNMOVIC found 18 unfilled chemical rockets at ammunition depots
involved in the handling of similar weapons in the past.

Link

The UN inspectors were destroying mustard gas and 155mm artillery shells at the site during February 2003.

The destruction of mustard and 155mm artillery shells used for mustard gas at the Al
Muthana site will resume tomorrow. The destruction process was temporarily halted due
to technical problems. When the work was halted, about one-third of 50 liters of mustard
had been destroyed. If everything goes well, the destruction work will be completed in
four to five days.

Post invasion the Iraq Survey Group were still finding remnants of this old stockpile as well as checking on the sealed bunkers at the site now in ISIS control.

Link

Even the UN teams realized that when they left Iraq pre-invasion that old legacy WMD would still be found.

Observations
16. In general, given the large total quantities of chemical munitions produced and
filled by Iraq with chemical warfare agents over the period of 10 years, several
deployment and recollection campaigns, the dozens of facilities and units involved
in the handling of those weapons and the existing gaps in the accounting for the
munitions, it is not surprising that some munitions have been found by the coalition
forces.

Link

Destroying the Chemical Weapons at Muthanna

On February 12, 2009, Iraq acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), a multilateral treaty banning the development, production, stockpiling, transfer, and use of chemical weapons.[8] (To date, 188 countries have signed and ratified the CWC.) After joining the Convention, Iraq was obligated to declare within 30 days any legacy stocks of chemical weapons it had inherited from the Saddam Hussein regime. On March 12, 2009, Iraq declared Bunkers 13 and 41 at Muthanna containing filled and unfilled chemical munitions and precursors, as well as five former chemical weapons production facilities, to the international body overseeing CWC implementation—the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in The Hague, the Netherlands.[9]

Because of the hazardous conditions in Bunker 13, UNSCOM inspectors were unable to make an accurate inventory of its contents before sealing the entrances in 1994. As a result, no record exists of the exact number or status of the sarin-filled rockets remaining in the bunker. According to the UNMOVIC final report in 2007, the rockets "may be both filled and unfilled, armed or unarmed, in good condition or deteriorated."[10] In the worst-case scenario, the munitions could contain as much as 15,000 liters of sarin. Although it is likely that the nerve agent has degraded substantially after nearly two decades of storage under suboptimal conditions, UNMOVIC cautioned that "the levels of degradation of the sarin fill in the rockets cannot be determined without exploring the bunker and taking samples from intact warheads."[11] If the sarin remains highly toxic and many of the rockets are still intact, they could pose a proliferation risk.

Even if the sarin inside the rockets in Bunker 13 has degraded to the point that it has no military value and is little more than hazardous waste, the CWC still requires that all such materials be destroyed. Following Iraq's submission of its initial CW declaration in March 2009, the OPCW Technical Secretariat processed and analyzed the data. In April, Iraq submitted a general plan for destroying the CW materials stored in the two declared bunkers at Muthanna, as well as dismantling its former chemical weapons production facilities.[12]

Link

a reply to: tommyjo

There is a HUGE difference between old WMD stockpiles and active WMD.

Those former WMD are likely corroded sludge's now.

a reply to: crazyewok

They may very well be terribly degraded. That was the intent 20+ years ago when the United Nations sealed that site as a waste dump too dangerous to ever clean up, for the state of cut missile and warhead casings, the debris of the chem weapons production process and whatever remained of the agents themselves. Pesonally, I think we should have used the opportunity to make the largest ignition of termite in history to burn that location down INTO the desert sands...not leave it.

My concern now isn't that they'll have warheads to arm and fire. That's silly and absurd for what this location is and is not. It's NOT a storage of working weapons.

However, ISIS seems to be a hard scrabble bunch, capable of Macguyvering their way to making do when they have to. How much mustard does it take..in how pure a condition...to put someone through hell? Might these agents simply MAIM people now, in direct contact ..vs the quick kills which agents like VX are intended to cause (nothing quick or often lethal with mustard, and different things, I admit).

So.... how many more "sealed sites" from the end of the 1991 war were "too dangerous" to properly clean up and dispose of? How many more Pandora's Box examples are sitting around Iraq with earthen berms as the best defense against open or accidental release? I didn't know THIS one existed specifically......did anyone else in the public?

Dandy... So we didn't "obliterate" Saddam's WMD (like what murdered the Kurds in their slime attacks). We simply rendered it unusable and left it at that? Really?

Oh... Color me as unimpressed as I've likely ever been with either the United Nations OR United States with forward planning. I don't care if VX has lost 80% of it's lethality. That just means it may take the whole medicine dropper to kill a room of people, and not simply one tiny drop. (sigh)

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Well the key is yes they may maim ans still kill but not on any large scale you need to fret over. It no different now to them just buying acid on ebay and throwing it around.

You need to kill someone in a war:

You use a gun or you throw acid on them?

The point is those chemical likely are not even worth the effort to weaponize.

I agree the USA and UN should have done a better clear up job.

But the situation now is not worth Iraq war 3.0

All who are up to date outside of the MSM are finally getting the slap in the face that all our worries are real. It's all couped from beyond day one by those who control the money flow and power pyramid in the world.

Is this a precursor to this? :

Doom Porn - The Simpsons...

a reply to: crazyewok

I need to ask in honest curiosity. Where is the profit and benefit to downplaying the most dangerous substances ever known or created by man, falling into the hands of some of the single most dangerous fanatics we've seen in modern times?

I believe I will fret just a bit, as the F.S.A. (what the ISIS commanders and many fighters started as in many cases) is already on the record ..video record...with development and use of chemical weapons in a VERY modified and VERY unstable homemade form.

They just took a facility that gives them the residue, at the very least, at the same bathtub level of "imperfection" they've already shown they've been quite happy with calling a viable weapon.

Now, prior to these latest reports..I didn't even know we HAD left sites with chemical weapons debris and material scattered all over, to the degree experts are saying the Jihadis will need bunny suits just to enter it again.

ALSO...... This was a weapons facility in a past life, as I understand it. We know ISIS is partially made of up former Saddam regime Generals and Commanding Officers. Tell me.. are you willing to bet your very life on the fact we found 100% of EVERYTHING inside, around or *UNDER* that location? ISIS has the people with them who wouldn't be guessing ..but would know by personal and direct knowledge.

I hope we're right in saying that is nothing but a junk yard of weapons past.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Well im pretty confident (not 100%) those dangerous substances such as VX gas and Sarin are gone. They really don't age well.

If there is some left? Well it will be heavily contaminated and I guess will be a very bad local problem so I guess if you lived in Iraq and Syria I would fret.

I would say they may be nasty weapons just not of MASS destruction.

I think it all comes down to what we class as worrying.

It not going to be a problem for us in the west.

I would not be averse to a NATO airstrike on the place though, it wont hurt, just not another full scale war.

a reply to: crazyewok

Well, maybe we'd be less at odds on the topic and the lack of 100% certainty if I made very very clear my opinion on further military action by Western powers.

We had our shot. We had a decade and two Presidents to try. We failed. We failed spectacularly. We can play at saying we didn't fail...for a period of time....but that period started in fail and it's now culminated in ultimate fail by the Iraqi nation and people. So...It's a safe thing to say, IMO.

Given that, going back would be the very definition of insanity to do the same thing and expect a better outcome. We can't go back. Not in any sane look at the situation, in my view.

So with that in mind, when I say I'm concerned about what was left in whatever condition and sealed conditions it was? It's a concern to seeing regional ...not Western...powers solve their own boggle for a change. Let Turkey, or Iran or Saudi go lose thousands for a change. Let them see the massive casualty numbers we've suffered ..without our medical support to make former war's KIA's into WIA's that made us all feel better in the end.....except the guys suffering of course.

At most? I'd say we should air strike..and SHOULD HAVE many many moons ago, before we ever left.

How many B-52's could we muster in a full flight to pound that site for a good long extended period with incendiary, at the very least? Nothing like the formations in World War II..or even close as a joke to compare with, I know. However, if we can't toast one location in the desert...what good are we?

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

I agree and nice big air strike with a Thermobaric bomb or two would likley solve the issue.

The Iraq government has agreed to allow US air strikes and ISIS wont be able to offer much threat to a high flying bomber.

No risk and high gain. So id have no issues.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000

How many B-52's could we muster in a full flight to pound that site for a good long extended period with incendiary, at the very least? Nothing like the formations in World War II..or even close as a joke to compare with, I know. However, if we can't toast one location in the desert...what good are we?

What if in the process you inadvertently release a cloud of mixed nerve and blister agents that kill thousands or more innocent Iraqis?

That would make for a hell of a news day, don't you think?

The UN inspectors were all over this place before the war, and during it was pretty much destroyed, the thinking was that it was more costly and dangerous to attempt to dispose or clean up the mess than to leave some of it in the sealed bunkers.

It's kinda like attacking an active nuclear facility... You can't do it without blasting radioactive particles all over the place.

If these militants have it, then they are the most likely to suffer any harm from it if they try to use any of it.

They'd be better off building a new facility and starting from scratch. It is a publicity and political victory for them, and a way to frighten people only. A victory nonetheless.

Now if they could get inside and find proof that the chemical weapons were made in the USA that would be major.

If so then maybe carpet bombing now is a good idea despite the potential risks.

originally posted by: ausername

What if in the process you inadvertently release a cloud of mixed nerve and blister agents that kill thousands or more innocent Iraqis?

)

Doesn't work like that.

Nerve gases cant be stored for any prolonged period of time before they degraded Normally there precursors are stored separately and even those are so toxic and corrosive they degrade what there stored in and become useless.

Any Nerve gas left would be in small or trace amounts not enough to turn the area into a zone of chemical death

Nerve gases are particularly sensitive to heat too. so a thermometric bomb would pose zero risk of a accidental leak.
It why they are a pain to deliver. Its easy to make a nerve gas but a you got to deliver it without destroying it.

As for blister agents? Well the same issues with storage really plus they don't spread well without being properly delivered. So a leak will be local in nature. If your close enough to be exposed to the gas the bombing will kill you anyway. Plus again the high temperatures will likely render the gas inert.

There is really not much risk if they do a thorougher bombing job.

a reply to: ausername

The fear of release (as it DID happen in 1991, by the way) is why I said incendiary at the very least. This might actually be one of those rare moments where total and absolute obliteration is the required end result.

There is only one weapon I know of in the world's arsenals which are capable of total and 100% certain obliteration of chemical and biological agents. They come in a variety of sizes too ...and I'd note, if we finished this as we should have in the 90's? None of this would even be a topic to talk about, eh?

a reply to: crazyewok

Some of this stuff is in projectiles bombs and warheads, that may survive the initial bombing meant to destroy them and could be blown out into the open leaking the contents as they go...

I agree though the risks are probably not that great one way or the other. Especially given the age of the agents involved.. Only one way to really find out eh?

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: ausername

The fear of release (as it DID happen in 1991, by the way) is why I said incendiary at the very least. This might actually be one of those rare moments where total and absolute obliteration is the required end result.

There is only one weapon I know of in the world's arsenals which are capable of total and 100% certain obliteration of chemical and biological agents. They come in a variety of sizes too ...and I'd note, if we finished this as we should have in the 90's? None of this would even be a topic to talk about, eh?

You dont even need a nuke a thermobarric bomb will do the job nicely.

originally posted by: ausername
a reply to: crazyewok

Some of this stuff is in projectiles bombs and warheads, that may survive the initial bombing meant to destroy them and could be blown out into the open leaking the contents as they go...

I agree though the risks are probably not that great one way or the other. Especially given the age of the agents involved.. Only one way to really find out eh?

Remember thess are not new warhead, they have been sitting in storage since 1991.

By now they are so degraded you would lucky to find trace amounts of the original nerve agents.


Nerve gas does not keep for long peroids.

a reply to: crazyewok

I see you noting that Nerve doesn't last long..but where are we getting this from? The weapons the US has been destroying from places like the Umatilla Chemical Weapons Storage Depot date far far back, given US production ended decades ago. Still dangerous enough to be treated as live and viable weapons.

So, I like the idea that we theorize it's all harmless....but this is one instance where I won't take the "nothing to see here..move along now" for a facility the public didn't even know/remember existed. I've read in this thread where some combat veterans from Iraq weren't even aware of this place. I.E..... how anyone but the men who have been there can know what precise conditions containers and material was left in sounds like a very comforting assumption, but an exceptionally dangerous one, given what being even a LITTLE bit wrong means to real human beings.

Article relating to past mistakes in blowing Iraqi Chem facilities.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: crazyewok

I see you noting that Nerve doesn't last long..but where are we getting this from? The weapons the US has been destroying from places like the Umatilla Chemical Weapons Storage Depot date far far back, given US production ended decades ago. Still dangerous enough to be treated as live and viable weapons.

So, I like the idea that we theorize it's all harmless....but this is one instance where I won't take the "nothing to see here..move along now" for a facility the public didn't even know/remember existed. I've read in this thread where some combat veterans from Iraq weren't even aware of this place. I.E..... how anyone but the men who have been there can know what precise conditions containers and material was left in sounds like a very comforting assumption, but an exceptionally dangerous one, given what being even a LITTLE bit wrong means to real human beings.

Article relating to past mistakes in blowing Iraqi Chem facilities.

If I rember correctly they are treated as dangrous as the waste is still very toxic and nastly stuff, just not WMD nasty, more a hazard to the poor sods handling it. Its better to be safe than sorry. Plus god knows what the USA and UK devopled in the chemical weapons department. I know russia devloped some advanced nerve gases that
Were more stable.



Anyway as iv stated a thermobarric bomb or two just to be safe is something I would be strongly for.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: ausername
a reply to: crazyewok

Some of this stuff is in projectiles bombs and warheads, that may survive the initial bombing meant to destroy them and could be blown out into the open leaking the contents as they go...

I agree though the risks are probably not that great one way or the other. Especially given the age of the agents involved.. Only one way to really find out eh?

Remember thess are not new warhead, they have been sitting in storage since 1991.

By now they are so degraded you would lucky to find trace amounts of the original nerve agents.


Nerve gas does not keep for long peroids.

If your statement about nerve gas like sarin and VX were true then the Bluegrass Army Depot would have closed many, many years ago. (see here: en.wikipedia.org...) If these agents "degrade" as quickly as you seem to think, we wouldn't still have masses of them stored in various spots around the US awaiting disposal. At the end of the wiki article is a list of the reported leaks at that facility. If the degradation of these agents is as rapid and complete as you seem to believe, why have we spent literally billions of dollars to construct facilities to contain and destroy them? Why not just seal them into bunkers and let them die their natural death? I can tell you from personal experience, the residents of Richmond, KY don't share your view that "old" chemical weapons are nothing to be concerned about.

a reply to: neo96

There is definitely something rotten in Denmark here (or, rather, Iraq).

Either there were no WMDs there, or there were. So which was it?