Sarin gas: The deadly chemical weapon Syria might be ready to use

On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 07:59:24 -0800 (PST), mg wrote:

On Dec 11, 5:59*am, "PJ O'D" wrote:
*Sarin gas: The deadly chemical weapon Syria might be ready to use


First of all, I don't believe that chemical weapons are all that
dangerous. How many people in the world have ever been killed by
chemicals weapons?

See --
http://www.araratnews.net/nuce.php?aid=409



Planet Visitor II

On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:31:59 -0800, "In a Very Dark Blue, China Blue Condition" wrote:

In article ,
Planet Visitor II wrote:

What has always troubled me about Iraq is that Saddam DID HAVE WMDs
that he used against the Kurds. But no such weapons of any kind were ever
found in Iraq. Now I believe that he had no such weapons, but it still

That's simple. One of the terms of the 1991 cease fire is that he destroy such
weapons and stop making new ones. He complied with the cease fire and an
existing weapons were destroyed. And he didn't make any new ones. So by 2003 all
that was left was trash and a few that got misplaced.

I wouldn't disagree with that. It just sounds out of character as something that
Saddam would do, as the megalomaniac he proved to be.


Planet Visitor II

On Dec 11, 2:27*pm, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 07:59:24 -0800 (PST), mg wrote:
On Dec 11, 5:59 am, "PJ O'D" wrote:
Sarin gas: The deadly chemical weapon Syria might be ready to use
First of all, I don't believe that chemical weapons are all that
dangerous. How many people in the world have ever been killed by
chemicals weapons?

See --http://www.araratnews.net/nuce.php?aid=409

Planet Visitor II

I believe the only legitimate reasons for going to war are for self-
defense or as a humanitarian intervention. One of the excuses we heard
a lot for invading Iraq was that they "gassed their own people". The
truth, though, is that we helped our ally Saddam avoid censure at the
time, and even helped with the battle planning using chemicals and
helped Saddam develop his own chemical-biological programs. At the
same time that George Bush was pursuing wars that will ultimately cost
about $3-$4 trillion, he was cutting the Nunn-Lugar programs, which
only cost a few hundred million, to reduce WMD proliferation.

With the Anfal campaign, my impression is that most of the victims
were probably killed after being captured and put in concentration
camps. We used the gassing, though, as one of the excuses for the Iraq
invasion, and as a result as many as $1 million Iraqis died, and we
payed a huge price with our own blood and treasure.

Estimates are that in the U.S., we lose about 45,000 people per year
because of lack of medical insurance. Approximately 32,000/yr are
killed in traffic accidents. Approximately 12,000/year are killed with
guns.

When you're dead, you're dead, and when you die violently, I,
personally, don't think it makes much difference whether you're killed
by napalm or gas, for instance, and I think this beating of the war
drums over Syria is all nonsense that probably has little or nothing
to do with self-defense or humanitarianism.

On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 15:55:37 -0800 (PST), mg wrote:

On Dec 11, 2:27*pm, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 07:59:24 -0800 (PST), mg wrote:
On Dec 11, 5:59 am, "PJ O'D" wrote:
Sarin gas: The deadly chemical weapon Syria might be ready to use
First of all, I don't believe that chemical weapons are all that
dangerous. How many people in the world have ever been killed by
chemicals weapons?

See --http://www.araratnews.net/nuce.php?aid=409

Planet Visitor II

I believe the only legitimate reasons for going to war are for self-
defense or as a humanitarian intervention. One of the excuses we heard
a lot for invading Iraq was that they "gassed their own people". The
truth, though, is that we helped our ally Saddam avoid censure at the
time, and even helped with the battle planning using chemicals and
helped Saddam develop his own chemical-biological programs. At the
same time that George Bush was pursuing wars that will ultimately cost
about $3-$4 trillion, he was cutting the Nunn-Lugar programs, which
only cost a few hundred million, to reduce WMD proliferation.

With the Anfal campaign, my impression is that most of the victims
were probably killed after being captured and put in concentration
camps. We used the gassing, though, as one of the excuses for the Iraq
invasion, and as a result as many as $1 million Iraqis died, and we
payed a huge price with our own blood and treasure.

Estimates are that in the U.S., we lose about 45,000 people per year
because of lack of medical insurance. Approximately 32,000/yr are
killed in traffic accidents. Approximately 12,000/year are killed with
guns.

When you're dead, you're dead, and when you die violently, I,
personally, don't think it makes much difference whether you're killed
by napalm or gas, for instance, and I think this beating of the war
drums over Syria is all nonsense that probably has little or nothing
to do with self-defense or humanitarianism.


Very interesting. But my response was only an answer to the question of
"How many people in the world have ever been killed by chemical
weapons?"

I don't intend to rehash the Iraq war, since I've already expressed my views
about 100 times in Usenet posts under the handle of "Planet Visitor."

While obviously if one argues support for gun control which causes 12,000
deaths annually, one should probably support car control, and return to
the horse and buggy except for "official use only" as with weapons, to save
20,000 more lives than are killed by firearms.

Nor do I believe a piece of paper with "Health Insurance" emblazoned on
the top will save the lives of 45,000 people every year. I suspect that
anyone who claims that has an agenda of their own; nor do those who
die without health insurance do so through violent death, as with WMDs,
firearms, and auto accidents.... even though when you're dead you're
dead.


Planet Visitor II

On 11/12/12 22:14, in article ,
"Planet Visitor II" wrote:

What has always troubled me about Iraq is that Saddam DID HAVE WMDs
that he used against the Kurds. But no such weapons of any kind were ever
found in Iraq. Now I believe that he had no such weapons, but it still
troubles me to question what he did with the WMDs he used against the
Kurds... since he certainly didn't use all of what he had and suddenly decided
he'd used them all and no longer wanted any more.


The attack on the Kurds occurred in 1988. Major destruction of the gas
weapons occurred after the 1991 war and under the supervision of the UN. We
knew in detail the amount of raw materials brought into the country and 90%
of those materials were accounted for and destroyed.

The raw
material for arin includes O=PF2-CH3 which now is carefully monitored world
wide. Practically any substance containing a P-F bond is poisonous
My first position as a synthetic chemist involved working with a number
of phosphorous containing materials, from phosphine on "up". With such
materials one works in hood environments, all exit gases are burned off
to prevent these getting into the atmosphere. Some biochemists use organo
phosphates to inactivate proteins, that is hood work but no burning.
Somebody is sent up stairs to prevent anybody approaching the hood
exhaust. The problem with chemistry is that one learns that things
are dangerous after a serious accident occurs. Not too long ago a grad
student at UCLA was burned to death from a fire started with a spill of
an organolithium compound. I worked with these often and never had a problem
but I always worked using an argon atmosphere, keeping oxygen out of the
reach of these nasty compounds. On the other hand I has a few explosions.

Theoretical chemistry was safer.

On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:28:34 +0100, Earl Evleth wrote:

On 11/12/12 22:14, in article ,
"Planet Visitor II" wrote:

What has always troubled me about Iraq is that Saddam DID HAVE WMDs
that he used against the Kurds. But no such weapons of any kind were ever
found in Iraq. Now I believe that he had no such weapons, but it still
troubles me to question what he did with the WMDs he used against the
Kurds... since he certainly didn't use all of what he had and suddenly decided
he'd used them all and no longer wanted any more.


The attack on the Kurds occurred in 1988. Major destruction of the gas
weapons occurred after the 1991 war and under the supervision of the UN. We
knew in detail the amount of raw materials brought into the country and 90%
of those materials were accounted for and destroyed.

The raw
material for arin includes O=PF2-CH3 which now is carefully monitored world
wide. Practically any substance containing a P-F bond is poisonous
My first position as a synthetic chemist involved working with a number
of phosphorous containing materials, from phosphine on "up". With such
materials one works in hood environments, all exit gases are burned off
to prevent these getting into the atmosphere. Some biochemists use organo
phosphates to inactivate proteins, that is hood work but no burning.
Somebody is sent up stairs to prevent anybody approaching the hood
exhaust. The problem with chemistry is that one learns that things
are dangerous after a serious accident occurs. Not too long ago a grad
student at UCLA was burned to death from a fire started with a spill of
an organolithium compound. I worked with these often and never had a problem
but I always worked using an argon atmosphere, keeping oxygen out of the
reach of these nasty compounds. On the other hand I has a few explosions.

Theoretical chemistry was safer.


Thanks for you opinion. While it adds nothing to the facts. Like the number of
non-citizen Arab Israelis... 90% is not 100%.


Planet Visitor II

On 13/12/12 7:56, in article ,
"Planet Visitor II" wrote:

Like the number of
non-citizen Arab Israelis... 90% is not 100%.

You are a poor loser!

On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 11:16:32 +0100, Earl Evleth wrote:

On 13/12/12 7:56, in article ,
"Planet Visitor II" wrote:

Like the number of
non-citizen Arab Israelis... 90% is not 100%.

You are a poor loser!

No proof offered. Your claim fails. Or are you actually trying to claim
that 90% IS the same as 100%????


Planet Visitor II

On 13/12/12 19:03, in article ,
"Planet Visitor II" wrote:

You are a poor loser!

No proof offered. Your claim fails.


You gave the proof in your own postings.

On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 19:20:50 +0100, Earl Evleth wrote:

On 13/12/12 19:03, in article ,
"Planet Visitor II" wrote:

You are a poor loser!

No proof offered. Your claim fails.


You gave the proof in your own postings.

LOL.... yeah, the proof that 90% is not 100%. And yet you keep claiming
that it is, and insist that your belief that 90% is no different than 100% makes
you a winner.


Planet Visitor II