It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Iraqi Insurgents Use 2nd 'Dirty' Bomb in 2 days

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 07:42 AM
Iraqi Insurgents Use 2nd 'Dirty' Bomb

Insurgents exploded a truck carrying chlorine gas canisters Wednesday - the second such "dirty" chemical attack in two days - while a U.S. official said ground fire apparently forced the downing of a Black Hawk helicopter. All nine aboard the aircraft were rescued.

link to article

This is a step up from random IED's and AK attacks. THis is the first I have heard of this type of attack in Iraq, and since we have lost more than half a dozen copters in the last month, I would have to say that there is somone else behind the sudden efficiency of the insurgents.

I am not pointing any fingers, but this is not helping an international case for the US to not invade Iran. What would happen if a suitcase nuke was detonated in the Green Zone? What would the response to that be?

AS a side note, At least 3,149 members soldiers have died in Iraq since March 2003. Bring the boys(and girls) back home.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 22/2/2007 by Mirthful Me]

posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 08:01 AM
[edit on 22-2-2007 by Agit8dChop]

posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 08:03 AM
I am still searching but this appears to be the third chlorine bomb attack in IRAQ, this was reported by CENTCOM on Jan 30, 2007


AR RAMADI, Iraq – Emergency Response Unit personnel, Iraqi Police, and civilians northwest of Ramadi were attacked by a suicide vehicle-born improvised explosive device (SVBIED) early Sunday. Coalition forces responded to the attack to provide immediate medical assistance and evacuate the wounded to medical facilities.
Along with the suicide bomber, 16 people were killed by the attack.
The SVBIED was a dump truck filled with explosives and included a chlorine tank. The truck crashed into the Emergency Response Unit compound and detonated. There are no indications of any casualties caused by the release of chlorine gas.

posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 08:04 AM
There's quite a few different threads regarding these chlorine bombs,
shouldnt we try to stick to them?

But im curious as to HOW we are still allowing these 'chlorine' trucks to be freely available for them to use?

How often do Chlorine Trucks driving around baghdad these days?


posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 08:14 AM
Wow.. What a shock, as the world and the USA calls for the their troops to come home the violence surges in Iraq.. Gasp .. that's never happened before

This is a joke.. it always happens.. when there is a huge public upset over the troops and the surge of troops there is a surge in violence.. so bush and his ponies can point and say "See ..see.. they need us there" No.. They need you to leave.. Youre not part of the solution.. You ARE the problem

posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 08:53 AM
Or from a different perspective- the public outcry for our forces to leave inspires the insurgents, who feel they only need to wait us out to achieve victory, and know that the West doesn't have the stomach to see the job through. The public outcry does nothing to help stop the violence or win the peace- It just makes the soldier's work that much more difficult, as the insurgents are encouraged by what they see in the news. If we came at them with a unified front, with a universal will to win, I think the outcome would be significantly different.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 22/2/2007 by Mirthful Me]

posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 09:00 AM

But for us to be universally behind it with the will to win, we need a REASONABLE REASON to be fighting in the first place.

The insurgency has already won, simply because we had NO NEED to invade.

from day one, all they had to do was wait us out.

We've ruined Iraq, and created this mess, we should be prepared to face the consequences.
continuing our path in Iraq believing we can achieve victory if we just keep going is stupidity.

do you really believe we are going to be able to convince the iraqi's to doa a 180, to live in peace, and stop hating us, after all we have done ?

especially when we lied through our teeth to kick it off?


the longer we stay, the worse it'll get for everyone.
if we pullout yes, america will be in danger of attacks and further anti-american feelings..

but jesus... you invaded and occupied a country for illegial reasons.. .there's no possible way out of this debacle without having reprecussions...

America F'ukd up, so prepare to face the reality of your mistake.

[edit on 22-2-2007 by Agit8dChop]

posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 09:22 AM
I will agree with you to the extent that mistakes were made and that universally shared bad intel played a role in the initial attack in Iraq, but Iraq did fail to meet the requirements of the cease fire resolutions from the first Gulf War. My take on the unified front is this- in the military before a decision on matters is reached, a leader takes counsel of his staff, but once a decision has been made to execute a plan, then his subordinates make it happen(even if they personally liked another plan better, so long as the plan isn't unlawful, or unethical). On a national level, prior to hostilities commencing, there's all sorts of room for debate on merits, but once we're at war, the best outcome is to win that war even if you didn't agree with starting it. The soldiers didn't have a political choice in the matter, so it's their countrymen's responsibility to show them the support needed to get them back home the soonest and with success. Anything else drags wars out, creating more casualties than would otherwise have occurred. Protesting a war isn't going to stop a war, but it can make it a failure. As a soldier I take a dim view on those who would rather fail, and cause me and my fellow soldiers more hardship, than win.
After the war is over, and victory has been achieved, then you can vote out the "scoundrels" you don't like, but at least win the war first.

[edit on 22-2-2007 by BlueRaja]

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 22/2/2007 by Mirthful Me]

posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 09:43 AM
All violence in Iraq is insurgency.......
Doesn't that ever get old?

[edit on 22-2-2007 by Awake and All Seeing]

posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 10:26 AM
All violence in Iraq isn't committed solely by the insurgents, but on the flip side, all violence isn't bad or unjustified. If violence is necessary to stop those that would attack the innocent, then so be it. There's a difference between homicide and murder. Do a google search to see the distinction.

posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 01:09 PM
U.S.: Iraq bomb factory raid nets deadly chlorine supply

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A U.S. military commander Thursday said a raid outside Falluja two days ago discovered a home-grown factory for car bombs that included a metal shop, explosives and cylinders of toxic chlorine gas and other chemicals.
I think this is a very bad escalation from the insurgency's side.
Using chemical weapons will do nothing, but play into the americans hands,

posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 01:27 PM
Notice also that this tactic, hitting trucks with hazardous chemicals to cause gas attacks, is similar to what hussein was doing, gassing villages that were a threat to him in an effect to gain control.

Call the US whatever anyone wants, but when it leaves, its going to be a real bloodbath over there.

posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 06:13 PM
Why the sudden change in definition?

I thought a dirty bomb was one that utilised radioactive material coupled with a conventional explosion to spread radiation over a given area.

Is this just more media sensationalism?

Is this not a bad enough act, without any need for distortion of the facts by using another MSM buzzword of the week?

Definitions of dirty bomb on the Web:

an atom bomb that leaves considerable radioactive contamination

The term dirty bomb is most often used to refer to a Radiological Dispersal Device (RDD), a radiological weapon which combines radioactive material with conventional explosives. Though an RDD is designed to disperse radioactive material over a large area, the conventional explosive would likely have more immediate lethal effect than the radioactive material. At levels created from most probable sources, not enough radiation would be present to cause severe illness or death. ...


[edit on 22/2/07 by Implosion]

posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 08:15 PM
The US never had a problem when Saddam was gassing people. In fact, those chemical weapons came from them.

The tactics of war are evolving or we're being conditioned for a much bigger debacle about to happen in Iraq. Either way from the looks of it, it's not a pretty picture being painted.


posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 08:46 PM
How can we forget the entire reason Iraq invaded Kuwait in the first gulf war?

Iraqi legislators accused Kuwait of stealing their oil as well as chipping away at their national territory on the border — allegations similar to those used by Saddam Hussein to justify his invasion of Kuwait that began 15 years ago Tuesday.

An Iraqi delegation was scheduled to head to Kuwait on Wednesday discuss the incidents along the Kuwaiti border

"There have been violations such as digging horizontal oil wells to pump Iraq oil," legislator Jawad al-Maliki, chairman of the parliament's Security and Defense Committee, told the National Assembly on Tuesday.

In such horizontal wells, instead of drilling straight down, Kuwaitis would drill at an angle either going into subterranean Iraqi territory or sucking oil out of pools from Iraqi territory. He also said Kuwaitis have taken territories up to half a mile inside Iraq.

Iraqis Accuse Kuwait of Stealing Oil

Saddam was a CIA puppet...put into power by us--and when he defied the UN and the world powers the USA stepped in to put him back in "check" (ala the first gulf war)...

That which controls the engergy controls the world. Let's not also forget that the US dollar is NOT gold backed, but rather "oil backed"... The USA has a vested interest in the mid-east to maintain it's power structure.

[edit on 22-2-2007 by MystikMushroom]

posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 08:46 PM
This is rediculous...calling a lump of explosives strapped to a chlorine tank a "dirty bomb". Such hype. It's an exploding canister of chlorine, not a dirty bomb. As far as chlorine goes, I wouldn't consider this an escalation. Obtaining chlorine is not the hardest thing to do as it's largely benign. You order a few tanks, and nobody will look at you sideways because it is such a commonly used chemical.

You can't trust anything these days to tell you the truth.

posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 08:51 PM
Very good point. . . Hell, I can buy chlorine powder for my hot tub at a dozen stores up here in ALASKA...enough of that powder, and...well you catch my drift..

[edit on 22-2-2007 by MystikMushroom]

posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 10:44 PM
God dammit your right, how stupid of us to even label them wmd's...

christ, to think we fell for it so spectacularly when GW told us hey?

posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 05:02 PM

Originally posted by Implosion
Why the sudden change in definition?

I thought a dirty bomb was one that utilised radioactive material coupled with a conventional explosion to spread radiation over a given area.

Is this just more media sensationalism?

It is funny when I read things like this plus the responses after this one, which sense a bias in the opposite direction of what I sense. I think it just goes to the root of what people believe, and they see every opposing viewpoint as some sort of conspiracy I guess. I took it the opposite way, as the media's method to avoid the term "chemical weapons" in Iraq. "dirty bomb" sounds so much more innocuous to my ears rather than "chemical weapon". Especially after all of the press about the lack of so called chemical and biological weapons in Iraq, so I thought it was highly suspicious not to use the term chemical weapon, bordering on conspiratorial...

I also noticed these attacks do not make headline news, it was in the side stories on the major media home pages, but things such as rape trials for US soldiers, or a reporter saying he did not mention Valerie Plame to Scooter Libby when Libby said he thought he did, or Al Gore possibly winning an Oscar, rather than all of the other Oscar nominees.... are right there. In fact today headline news has been that polls say Americans underestimate Iraqi civilian casualties, and GIs are homeless when they get back from their tour.

Hmm which is more newsworthy... or maybe I should say propaganda worthy.

top topics


log in