It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Chemical Weapons - The Newest Insurgent Weapon

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Chemical Weapons - The Newest Insurgent Weapon


Source Link: www.cnn.com

Deadly and debilitating chlorine gas has been added to the arsenal of weapons fueling the explosive insurgency in Iraq with chemical attacks leaving at least 12 dead and more than 200 hospitalized in the past week.

An Interior Ministry official told CNN Thursday that the toxic yellow-green gas was a main component in Wednesday's bomb attack near a hospital in southwestern Baghdad's Bayaa neighborhood.

Six people were killed and more than 70 were hospitalized with respiratory problems.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 08:43 AM
link   
I find this to be extremely disconcerting. Suicide bombers, IED's and the like already present a scary scenario. I don't want to downplay the explosives, but they do have a limited capacity as compared to chemical weapons. Chemical weapons are a completely different animal. There is no discretion whatsoever with gas. It spreads and spreads until it finally dissipates. Under the right weather conditions, countless people can be effected.

So now that the insurgents have "stepped up a notch", what needs to be done? What can be done? I'm sure the standard answer is going to be "NUKE 'EM!". Sure, that would eliminate the insurgents presently in that area, BUT, it would also kill countless innocent civilians. Plus it would breed more insurgents ten-fold.

Seriously, what can be done? What steps should the allies take?



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Interesting the nw change of strategic targeting by the Insurgency and opposer's of the Iraqi government and the occupation.

Because the light on supposedly trafficking of arms from Iran and perhaps Syria, now the people are improvising bombs at home.

Interesting, very interesting.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Well, a teen in his basement is able to do that with products from the grocery... so why not in Iraq... this is not big news, but bad anyway.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Well, a teen in his basement is able to do that with products from the grocery... so why not in Iraq... this is not big news, but bad anyway.


While I agree that most anyone can make toxic gases with commonly available "ingredients", it's the fact that these folks are actually using them which I find so distressing. As I previously addressed, a bomb can be "semi contained" to a specific area. A suicide bomber goes into a store, for the most part the explosion would be contained within that store. An IED explodes on a roadside, it would pretty much effect only the vehicles right alongside said IED. With the exception of very specific conditions, gases are not contained. The complete disregard of innocent lives by using gasious weapons truly is a major concern. It adds an entirely new dimension to the "war on terror". I know that terrorists don't necessarily abide by the rules of war (The Geneva Convention) but the use of chemical weapons is severely prohibited. How do you fight fire with fire?



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Well, since the insurgency has resorted to chemical weapons, shouldnt we? I mean lets start using the white phosphorous again. Any enemy that resorts to using chemical weapons should have them used on them.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 09:54 AM
link   
What the CNN article doesn't tell is the reason why the second gas bomb was exploded . . .

Is is remakable to see how our own media take the news and nick pick for the enjoyment and support of the American population so they can be outraged at the way in which the suppouse Insurgency is working.

This is from the horses mouth itself . . .


A mortar attack struck the predominantly Sunni neighborhood of Adil in western Baghdad, leaving a crater in the ground and wounding at least four people, including a child, police said.

The strike came a day after insurgents exploded a truck carrying cholrinegas canisters- the second such "dirty" chemical attack in two days.
www.iraqdaily.com...


So far we are geared to see that the violence in Iraq is only one sided . . . Insurgency and terrorist against inocent civilians and ocallition troops that happen to be as now only Americans. . . .

The fact is that most of violence in Iraq is retaliation between tribal groups. But because one tribal groups holds the power over the other one the minority are the insurgency . . .but what should we call the other side?

Interesting.



[edit on 22-2-2007 by marg6043]



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Well, since the insurgency has resorted to chemical weapons, shouldnt we? I mean lets start using the white phosphorous again. Any enemy that resorts to using chemical weapons should have them used on them.


Like it or not agree with what xphiles is saying hear. The policy of the U.S. has been not to use chem weapons unless they are used against them. The real catch hear is since WMD have now been used, there is an argument to use WMD back, and there is one main WMD in the arsnel of the U.S., thats the nukes.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedGolem

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Well, since the insurgency has resorted to chemical weapons, shouldnt we? I mean lets start using the white phosphorous again. Any enemy that resorts to using chemical weapons should have them used on them.


Like it or not agree with what xphiles is saying hear. The policy of the U.S. has been not to use chem weapons unless they are used against them. The real catch hear is since WMD have now been used, there is an argument to use WMD back, and there is one main WMD in the arsnel of the U.S., thats the nukes.


Dude, chlorine gas is one thing, but Nukes? That's overkill and also rather more permanent in it's effects than chlorine.

A better tactic is to carry on as normal. If the insurgent's want to use these tactics against civilians, then it will only alienate them.

Especially considering the fact that Iraq has had it's fair share of gas used in it's history.

We British gave them a good gassing in the 30's (Winston Churchill the culprit there...) and Saddam is well documented to have used it himself.

The Iraqi people will turn on the insurgency if they keep this up.

Bomb's are one thing, but gassing your own people? Not going to wash after a while....



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedGolem
there is one main WMD in the arsnel of the U.S., thats the nukes.




How the hell you going to use nukes against an insurgency?

Furthermore, if you're going to stoop to the level of using chemical or biological weapons, why not just construct gas chambers a la 3rd Reich?

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster." - Friedrich Nietzsche



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 06:11 PM
link   
The so call insurgency using the bombs are the Sunnis retaliating from the Abuse of the now liberate Shiite government, allegations of rape victims and violence against women.

Very simple . . . sectarian violence answer each other with more violence.

Don't let the media propaganda let you into believe that this is only one side situation because is not.

What the US government is afraid . . . is the posiblility of US forces been targeted by the new improvised devices, so far they are use to fight Shiites and the rule of terror that they have become in Iraq.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedGolem

Like it or not agree with what xphiles is saying hear. The policy of the U.S. has been not to use chem weapons unless they are used against them. The real catch hear is since WMD have now been used, there is an argument to use WMD back, and there is one main WMD in the arsnel of the U.S., thats the nukes.




So nuke a country that is in the midst of a civil war and kill innocents, insurgents, Sunni, Kurds, Sheites, Christians, Jews, Muslims. They are all represented in Iraq. The old "Killem all and let God sortem out" approach. I'm sorry, I don't think you have given this much thought.

[edit on 22-2-2007 by whaaa]



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 08:55 PM
link   
We (the USA) have seem to taken it upon ourselves to enact the Monroe Doctrine not only in the Americas, but world-wide...why?

Our economy depends on oil...our currency is dependant on oil...Hell, 90% of the things I touch in a day are some form of petrochemical.

Controling the oil is why were are in Iraq...securing our "First World" status.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason


The Iraqi people will turn on the insurgency if they keep this up.

Bomb's are one thing, but gassing your own people? Not going to wash after a while....


Stumason,
you said a lot of good things there. But the point I am making is since chem weapons have not been used in the current theater, by current policy the U.S. can use WMD against its enemies. It would not be the people doing the fighting but those who supply them. That is an opinion only.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
They are all represented in Iraq. The old "Killem all and let God sortem out" approach. I'm sorry, I don't think you have given this much thought.

[edit on 22-2-2007 by whaaa]


Actually the kill em all is the what is happening there with secular violence going on right now. The nuke would only be larger and more efficient. However should it happen it might more likely be targeted on the suppliers of the weapons.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join