Chemical Weapons Factory found

Status
Not open for further replies.
Permabanned
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
7,394
Location
Leicestershire
Chemical Weapon Plant Captured

Sky News

Pentagon Confirm Chemical Weapon facility captured. General in charge captured by US forces


Jerusalem Post Article
About 30 Iraqi troops, including a general, surrendered today to US forces of the 3rd Infantry Division as they overtook huge installation apparently used to produce chemical weapons in An Najaf, some 150 kilometers (90 miles) south of Baghdad.

Asked to confirm 's exclusive coverage of this development, US Lt. Gen. John Abizaid, Deputy Commander of Central Command, told reporters: "I'm not going to confirm that report, but we have one or two generals officers who are providing us with information."
One soldier was lightly wounded when a booby-trapped explosive went off as he was clearing the sheet metal-lined chemical weapons production facility.

The huge 100-acre complex, which is surrounded by a electrical fence, is perhaps the first illegal chemical plant to be uncovered by US troops in their current mission in Iraq. The surrounding barracks resemble an abandoned slum.

It wasn't immediately clear exactly which chemicals were being produced here, but clearly the Iraqis tried to camouflage the facility so it could not be photographed aerially, by swathing it in sand-cast walls to make it look like the surrounding desert.
 
Closed
Permabanned
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
870
It might be a bit premature to get to excited about it though. Initial reports have a habit of getting 'clarifed' later on. I wonder if the troops that found this are qualified to tell the difference between a chemical plant and a chemical weapons plant.

I hope it IS a weapons plant - it will, as has been said, rather make Blair's and Bush's case for them - but I guess we'll have to wait and see.
 
Permabanned
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
7,394
Location
Leicestershire
Originally posted by Marcus
It might be a bit premature to get to excited about it though. Initial reports have a habit of getting 'clarifed' later on. I wonder if the troops that found this are qualified to tell the difference between a chemical plant and a chemical weapons plant.
The captured general would know the difference.
 
Man of Honour
OP
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
50,537
Originally posted by Marcus
It might be a bit premature to get to excited about it though. Initial reports have a habit of getting 'clarifed' later on.
I doubt if they would screw up over something like this. It seems that they have also captured the General who was in charge of the factory. And, unlike most chemical plants that can be easily used/converted for weapons production, it seems that this establishment was solely for weapons manufacture.
 
Associate
Joined
28 Oct 2002
Posts
1,180
Location
Somewhere, maybe nowhere
Originally posted by Marcus
It might be a bit premature to get to excited about it though. Initial reports have a habit of getting 'clarifed' later on. I wonder if the troops that found this are qualified to tell the difference between a chemical plant and a chemical weapons plant.

tbh m8 any chemical plant is generally capable of creating chemicals for use in weapons. All the equiptment used is the same - it just depends on what it is used for.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
8,973
factory.jpg


confirmed AFAIK

Greg
 
Permabanned
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
7,394
Location
Leicestershire
Sky News

Interviewing US journalist at the pentagon who is refuting Sky News line that the pentagon has confirmed the Jerusalem Post story. Which has originated from its embedded journalist with 3ID
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
8,116
Location
The Land of Roundabouts
Originally posted by Kerazee
tbh m8 any chemical plant is generally capable of creating chemicals for use in weapons. All the equiptment used is the same - it just depends on what it is used for.


True but why would you need to "camouflarge" a general chemical plant.

But i still wouldnt take it to serous, we only have a US version of the story, confirmed or not comfirmed id still be dubious
 
Permabanned
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
47,396
Location
Essex
As soon as I saw the thread title, I knew there would be lots of people saying 'that'll shut the anti war people up' :D

Some antis, me included, never said he didn't have banned chem/bio weapons. Don't wanna reopen the whole debate again in this thread 'well what would you do about it then? he had 12 years' etc as it's been flogged to death then flogged some more ;) But just for the record.

I still don't believe the war is just though. Having weapons and having an intent to use them are two different things altogether.

Let's just hope he DOESN'T have lots of weapons like that, in a usable form, as if we back him into a corner where he has nothing to lose, he might just use them. And bearing in mind the US said they would use nukes? (I think they said?) if Saddam used WMDs against troops, it could turn very nasty indeed. Nuke Iraq, make enemies of the entire middle east.. Saddam dies a martyr.. let's hope that isn't Saddam's master plan.
 
Closed
Permabanned
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
870
Originally posted by 2blue4u
I doubt if they would screw up over something like this. It seems that they have also captured the General who was in charge of the factory. And, unlike most chemical plants that can be easily used/converted for weapons production, it seems that this establishment was solely for weapons manufacture.
The army may not have screwed up though. If they reported it as a 'suspected' weapons factory and the press got a bit over-enthusiastic at the notion of such a hot story, and mitted the suspected, then .......

After all, the quoted report in this thread does say it is perhaps the first illegal chemical plant found. That could be taken to mean it is perhaps the first, or it is perhaps illegal.

Originally posted by Sleepy
The captured general would know the difference.
Maybe. He may just be aware there is a chemical plant there, but not the details of what goes on there.

Anyway, like I said, I hope it pans out the way it is being reported. But only a bit of time will tell. And ofr confirmation, the US really needs to gwet a couple of UN inspectors in there post haste - or there will be claims it is a put-up job.

It is, however, my belief that this sort of find was inevitable sooner or later.
 
Man of Honour
OP
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
50,537
Originally posted by dirtydog
Having weapons and having an intent to use them are two different things altogether.
But he already has a track record of having used them. A fact so often conveniently skirted around by some.
 
Closed
Permabanned
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
870
Originally posted by dirtydog
I still don't believe the war is just though. Having weapons and having an intent to use them are two different things altogether.
There is not much point having a weapon if you have no intent to use it. The only question is what circumstances you would use it under. As en example, the UK's possession of a nuclear deterrrent. To be effective, people have to believe you will use it - if the right need arises (like as a response to a nuclear attack).

Saddam, however, has proved on many occasions that he is fully prepared to use chemical weapons - and on civilian populations at that.
 
Permabanned
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
47,396
Location
Essex
Originally posted by 2blue4u
But he already has a track record of having used them. A fact so often conveniently skirted around by some.

He didn't use them against us in the last gulf war.. why? Probably because of the deterrent effect.. he knew he would face massive retaliation.

That is why I believe he would never have used them against us.

This time may be different, if he feels he has nothing to lose and is going to die anyway.

Also I'll post this story again for those who didn't catch it before.. Halabja
 
Last edited:
Permabanned
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
7,394
Location
Leicestershire
Originally posted by Sleepy
Sky News

Interviewing US journalist at the pentagon who is refuting Sky News line that the pentagon has confirmed the Jerusalem Post story. Which has originated from its embedded journalist with 3ID
Unattributted Senior Pentagon Official confirmed story to Fox news and hence to Sky News
 
Closed
Permabanned
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
870
Originally posted by LizardKing
True but why would you need to "camouflarge" a general chemical plant.
It could be a plant producing rocket fuel - or something else that is likely to be a legitimate military target, but not a chemical weapons plant.

The Iraqi's know that the US are capable of bombing such plants - it has happened before. The best way to avoid that is to hide them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom