| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| Debka at its Apocalyptic best |
| 2004-04-16 |
| Jordanian authorities hunting Azmi Jayoussi, Palestinian from Jenin, last member of al Qaeda-Hizballah team that infiltrated from Syria three weeks ago armed for poison gas mega-strike. Rest of team and 3 trucks packed with explosives, weapons and chemicals rounded up by Jordanian security. Potential casualty toll – 20,000 within 1.5 km radius. Before you totally discount the poison gas, Debka ran with the trucks filled with explosives running aroung Jordan for a week before the Jordanians fessed up and the mainstream media got the story. |
| Posted by:Phil B |
| #6 Is someone talking about the chem weapons that Saddam sent to Assad at the start of the war? The ones Scott Ritter said weren't there because he was too busy at Burger King? The ones that Hans Magoo Blix couldn't figure out because his galsses were fogged by appeasement? My oh My MARCHING SONG OF THE REPUBLICAN GUARD? What Chemical Weapons are for, To wage a holy war, Saddam has said that mustard gas is sacred. We've used it on the Kurds, And on the Persians too, Look out coalition troops it's coming on through! Yeah, right. |
| Posted by: Anonymous4052 2004-04-16 11:21:47 AM |
| #5 Chemical weapons are not that great a weapon in gas form. They are known to the military as "Non-persistent". They are used best for quick confusion and panic before your main force hits the enemy position. In a subway, or closed amphitheater they could do a great deal of damage, but in an open area they are fairly limited in their casualty-producing role. The "Persistent" chemical weapons are a worse threat. Think of a sticky residue that covers everything for a couple of hundred meters. It stays for weeks, or until rain-washes it away. The militaries around the world would use this to keep other troops away from areas for a while and to keep the areas intact for possible capture. Targets would be, crossroads, rail junctions, factories, ports, etc. Persistent chemical weapons would produce a hell of a lot more casualties for civilians that didn't know what it was and touched the stuff. They wouldn't want to leave their homes and livelihoods (see Cambodia and minefields). Persistent chemical weapons are deployed through airburst artillery, planes through spraying or a specially modified APC. |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2004-04-16 11:16:13 AM |
| #4 Many of the chemical warfare gases will burn, so disbursing them with explosives is a no-no. Recall that the massive gas attacks from history all used large artillary barrages, multiple gun batteries, or large numbers of aircraft, etc. Bhopal or the Tokyo subway attack are probably the best any terr could hope for. And, handling these chemicals calls for some delicacy or the terrs will be their own victims. The United States continues to have accidents on Johnson Island and in Alabama despite our precautions. |
| Posted by: Chuck Simmins 2004-04-16 9:27:17 AM |
| #3 Not clear that the chemicals were supposed to be dispersed by the explosives, or were they separate modes of attack? I don't think its easy to disperse chems with explosives. Still AQ seems to be attempting to enhance the lethality of their conventional bombs. |
| Posted by: virginian 2004-04-16 8:40:16 AM |
| #2 Syrian chem weapons? I wonder who they got them from... (Hey President Bush - your WMD hunt needs to be moved to the east a couple hundred miles). |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-04-16 8:19:59 AM |
| #1 20,000 seems very high for a gas attack. Consider the terrible Bhopal accident, which (only) killed 3,800 people, and that was a massive gas release (40 tonnes) from a chemical plant, at night, with no (or little) alarms sounded, and with a fairly undetectable-until-it's-too-late cyanide compound. |
| Posted by: Lux 2004-04-16 8:19:25 AM |