US official: 'IS making and using chemical weapons in Iraq and Syria' - Polidicks

[QUOTE]There is a growing belief within the US government that the Islamic State militant group is making and using crude chemical weapons in Iraq and Syria, a US official has told the BBC. [IMG]http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/13CF2/production/_85483118_gettyimages-186300978.jpg[/IMG] The US has identified at least four occasions on both sides of the Iraq-Syria border where IS has used mustard agents, the official said. The official said the chemical was being used in powder form. The US believes the group has a cell dedicated to building these weapons. "They're using mustard," the individual said of IS. "We know they are." The mustard agent was probably being used in powder form and packed into traditional explosives like mortar rounds, the official said. "We've seen them use it on at least four separate occasions on both sides of the border - both Iraq and Syria." When these weapons explode the mustard-laced dust blisters those who are exposed to it. [/QUOTE] Video in article: [URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34211838[/URL] If you are grossed out by blistering etc.. Don't watch it.

If their god is the one true god, ill choose hell thank you very much.

Grab your freedom hats boys we're going in

And we're back to square one again. *slow clap*

Fucking IS, it's almost safe to assume they would even launch a nuclear weapon if they ever got their hands on the hardware needed to launch one.

Sometimes I wonder if Saddam being in power would've been the best alternative.

[QUOTE=Destroyox;48659131]Sometimes I wonder if Saddam being in power would've been the best alternative.[/QUOTE] It kinda sounds like the same things they said, aka "WMDs in Iraq" (quote: George W. Bush). At this rate, I wouldn't be surprised by the end of next year, there might be boots on the ground and essentially as some have already said, back to square one.

[QUOTE=shutter_eye5;48659142]It kinda sounds like the same things they said, aka "WMDs in Iraq" (quote: George W. Bush). At this rate, I wouldn't be surprised by the end of next year, there might be boots on the ground and essentially as some have already said, back to square one.[/QUOTE] Yea that's the thing though. Saddam also used chemical weapons, but didn't leave the entire region in chaos. But him being power was still a bad thing. Aaaah, its a dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.

[QUOTE=Destroyox;48659177]Yea that's the thing though. Saddam also used chemical weapons, but didn't leave the entire region in chaos. But him being power was still a bad thing. Aaaah, its a dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.[/QUOTE] Another thread's discussion touched this subject nicely: who is better - a dictator, who you have a small chance to have deals with, or a terrorist group, which primary goal is to damage you as much as possible?

[QUOTE=DoktorAkcel;48659589]Another thread's discussion touched this subject nicely: who is better - a dictator, who you have a small chance to have deals with, or a terrorist group, which primary goal is to damage you as much as possible?[/QUOTE] Is this not a strong argument for neither? An argument for an international attempt to inject stability into a country that has passed the buck at sovereignty?

[QUOTE=shutter_eye5;48659142]It kinda sounds like the same things they said, aka "WMDs in Iraq" (quote: George W. Bush). At this rate, I wouldn't be surprised by the end of next year, there might be boots on the ground and essentially as some have already said, back to square one.[/QUOTE] Ya except this time around we have crowdsourced data that shows that there have been tons of injuries consistent with chemical weapons and actual recovered ordinance testing positive for chemical weapons residue. The CIA fabricated all of that Iraq stuff unfortunately but this time it's not coming from one super duper secret informant, its coming from a dozen sources [editline]11th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=DoktorAkcel;48659589]Another thread's discussion touched this subject nicely: who is better - a dictator, who you have a small chance to have deals with, or a terrorist group, which primary goal is to damage you as much as possible?[/QUOTE] I don't think people realise that dictators can destabilize just as fast as any other government, sadam could have died in the past 10 years and there could have been a civil war which would have caused exactly the same outcome [editline]11th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Bat-shit;48659091]Fucking IS, it's almost safe to assume they would even launch a nuclear weapon if they ever got their hands on the hardware needed to launch one.[/QUOTE] It makes you want to dig out some of those old tactical nukes, the ones that probably would kill your own troops when you use them

Why do they say there's a "growing belief" when they've already "identified four occasions" that the IS has used them? Surely it's not about belief here, it's about evidence, and they have it.

[QUOTE=Sableye;48659618]Ya except this time around we have crowdsourced data that shows that there have been tons of injuries consistent with chemical weapons and actual recovered ordinance testing positive for chemical weapons residue. The CIA fabricated all of that Iraq stuff unfortunately but this time it's not coming from one super duper secret informant, its coming from a dozen sources[/QUOTE]They didn't fabricate anything, they just believed one source who was a confirmed liar, the Germans were hopping around in the background yelling that he's full of shit. [QUOTE=Sableye;48659618]I don't think people realise that dictators can destabilize just as fast as any other government, sadam could have died in the past 10 years and there could have been a civil war which would have caused exactly the same outcome[/QUOTE]Honestly given the antics of his sons this is a likely possibility, and I'm sure it came up several times throughout the years. Ultimately though it's impossible to say and really I don't think we were wrong at all to have ousted the son of a bitch. We just dropped the ball rebuilding the country. [QUOTE=Antlerp;48659889]Why do they say there's a "growing belief" when they've already "identified four occasions" that the IS has used them? Surely it's not about belief here, it's about evidence, and they have it.[/QUOTE]There's a lot of old Iraqi and Syrian chemical agents still in stockpiles, tracking the Iraqi ones is a lot harder because they hid the munitions in with normal conventional ones. That's why there was no big "WE FOUND DUBYA EM DEES" and pictures of a big lab with warehouses full of super deadly doublescary shells and rockets. Simply put the Iraqis lied about destroying their stockpiles and hid them, which our EOD specialists found out later and nobody bothered to report on it and I'm sure the military didn't want it to get out either. It was only until [i]much later[/i] did anyone bother to write a story and even when it did get out nobody gave a shit because it wasn't the big juicy victory everyone was salivating for.

The fact that the Russians are now on Syria means sending us troops there over this is a huge no.

Not going to lie, I really thought it said US Official is making. Also, thanks ISIS, now most likely will be will returning to them middle east. Fucking hell.

ISIS is becoming more like the GLA everyday.

[QUOTE=shutter_eye5;48659142]It kinda sounds like the same things they said, aka "WMDs in Iraq" (quote: George W. Bush). At this rate, I wouldn't be surprised by the end of next year, there might be boots on the ground and essentially as some have already said, back to square one.[/QUOTE] This already is square one, Saddam's use of chemical weapons on civilians was why we invaded in the first place.

[QUOTE=Destroyox;48659177]Yea that's the thing though. Saddam also used chemical weapons, but didn't leave the entire region in chaos. But him being power was still a bad thing. Aaaah, its a dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.[/QUOTE] He hadn't used chemical weapons since the Iran-Iraq war probably. The one we sold him. Did he have chemical weapons in 2003? Maybe, because we did sell him general-use materials which could have and in the 80s were being used to manufacture chemical weapons. But there was no evidence that he had weapons beyond those very dated starter materials.

Chemical weapons have been used by several sides of the Syrian conflict, and chlorine bombs have been used against Iraqi troops since the start of last year. They are fairly easy constructions, I am honestly depressed as fuck though that people are still barbaric enough to use them.

[QUOTE=DoktorAkcel;48659589]Another thread's discussion touched this subject nicely: who is better - a dictator, who you have a small chance to have deals with, or a terrorist group, which primary goal is to damage you as much as possible?[/QUOTE] I'd rather scream, run around and panic