Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 10/13/2004 1:28:15 PM EST
I heard something about two EOD techs who were hurt by possibly mustard gas (?) when they were disarming an mortar round IED that detonated on them. Anyone have a link to any possible storys or at least more information than I have I would appreciate it. Thanks.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 1:39:30 PM EST
Dude, don't you know? Saddam never had WMD!

Seriously, it happened back in May and it was a Sarin gas shell. Two troops were treated for exposure to nerve gas. Two weeks prior to that a mustard gas shell was rigged but didn't detonate like the bad guys wanted it to.


BTW, notice how quickly these stories were buried? Fucking liberal media.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 2:02:21 PM EST
I tried doing a search for this, but couldnt pull up anything. Would anyone have their names or anything that could make it a more specific search.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 2:05:40 PM EST
It's election season dude, that stuff is hidden away where skerry can say there were no WMD's even thought the un is looking for missing equipment used to make nukes in Iraq
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 2:35:22 PM EST
MrKasab,
I found it by searching on "sarin gas IED exposure". Hope that helps.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 2:43:00 PM EST
Wasn't this one, was it?




Link Posted: 10/13/2004 3:31:59 PM EST
There was a Sarin IED and a mustard IED, according to the CIA report. The Sarin one exploded, I think the Mustard one was disarmed safely.

Kharn
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 3:35:35 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/13/2004 3:36:08 PM EST by MT_Pockets]
Hmmm Poultry Farm and Hot Mustard gas?...

MT
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 3:41:26 PM EST
Sarin? What Sarin?
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

Published: May 19, 2004
You probably missed the news because it didn't get much play, but a small, crude weapon of mass destruction may have been used by Saddam's terrorists in Iraq this week.

The apparent weapon was sarin gas, a highly toxic nerve agent that causes victims to choke to death. Developed by the Nazis, it has been used in the past by terrorists in Japan to kill a dozen subway riders and panic thousands, and by Saddam Hussein, who produced tons of it to kill Iraqi Kurds.
Rigged as an "improvised explosive device," or roadside bomb, the 155-millimeter howitzer shell was accidentally detonated by a U.S. ordnance team. Two men were treated for what an Army spokesman called "minor exposure" to the nerve gas.

You never saw such a rush to dismiss this as not news. U.N. weapons inspectors whose reputations rest on denial of Saddam's W.M.D. pooh-poohed the report. "It doesn't strike me as a big deal," said David Kay.

"Sarin Bomb Is Likely a Leftover From the 80's" was USA Today's Page 10 brushoff; maybe the terrorists didn't know their shell was loaded with sarin. Besides, say our lionized apostles of defeat, a poison-gas bomb does not a "stockpile" make. Even the Defense Department, on the defensive, strained not to appear alarmist, saying confirmation was needed for the field tests.
In this rush to misjudgment, we can see an example of the "Four Noes" that have become the defeatists' platform.
The first "no" is no stockpiles of W.M.D., used to justify the war, were found. With the qualifier "so far" left out, the absence of evidence is taken to be evidence of absence. In weeks or years to come — when the pendulum has swung, and it becomes newsworthy to show how cut-and-runners in 2004 were mistaken — logic suggests we will see a rash of articles and blockbuster books to that end.
These may well reveal the successful concealment of W.M.D., as well as prewar shipments thereof to Syria and plans for production and missile delivery, by Saddam's Special Republican Guard and fedayeen, as part of his planned guerrilla war — the grandmother of all battles. The present story line of "Saddam was stupid, fooled by his generals" would then be replaced by "Saddam was shrewder than we thought."

This will be especially true for bacteriological weapons, which are small and easier to hide. In a sovereign and free Iraq, when germ-warfare scientists are fearful of being tried as prewar criminals, their impetus will be to sing — and point to caches of anthrax and other mass killers.

Defeatism's second "no" is no connection was made between Saddam and Al Qaeda or any of its terrorist affiliates. This is asserted as revealed truth with great fervor, despite an extensive listing of communications and meetings between Iraqi officials and terrorists submitted to Congress months ago.
Most damning is the rise to terror's top rank of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who escaped Afghanistan to receive medical treatment in Baghdad. He joined Ansar al-Islam, a Qaeda offshoot whose presence in Iraq to murder Kurds at Saddam's behest was noted in this space in the weeks after 9/11. His activity in Iraq was cited by President Bush six months before our invasion. Osama's disciple Zarqawi is now thought to be the televised beheader of a captive American.

The third "no" is no human-rights high ground can be claimed by us regarding Saddam's torture chambers because we mistreated Iraqi prisoners. This equates sleep deprivation with life deprivation, illegal individual humiliation with official mass murder. We flagellate ourselves for mistreatment by a few of our guards, who will be punished; he delightedly oversaw the shoveling of 300,000 innocent Iraqis into unmarked graves. Iraqis know the difference.

The fourth "no" is no Arab nation is culturally ready for political freedom and our attempt to impose democracy in Iraq is arrogant Wilsonian idealism.

In coming years, this will be blasted by revisionist reportage as an ignoble ethnic-racist slur. Iraqis will gain the power, with our help, to put down the terrorists and find their own brand of political equilibrium.
Will today's defeatists then admit they were wrong? That's a fifth "no."




William Safire writes for the New York Times. I failed to retain the publisher of this report by Safire. It is verbatim from a legitimate publication which I believe to be the NYT. You could research this further for proper accreditation f that was important to you.
Top Top