Introduction
Introduction Statistics Contact Development Disclaimer Help
Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Religious Convictions
https://religiousconvictions.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
Return to: Secular Discussions
*****************************************************
#Post#: 2044--------------------------------------------------
Chlorine Bombs Possible in Britain
By: Kerry Date: May 24, 2015, 8:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Security experts are warning now that returning jihadists may
deploy chlorine bombs in the UK. From the Daily Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3095584/Returning-jihadis-use-chemical-…
The UK is facing a �growing threat� of a chemical weapons attack
by British jihadists returning from the Middle East, experts
have warned. Counter-terrorism police are focusing efforts on
the danger of bombs laced with chlorine. Security experts claim
the toxic bomb is the �chemical weapon of choice� for Islamic
State-trained terrorists returning from Syria and Iraq.
Iraqi forces found a quarter of the roadside bombs planted by IS
in the city of Tikrit contained the toxic substance.
Chemical warfare expert Colonel Hamish de Bretton-Gordon has
urged ministers to tighten controls on the sale of chlorine,
which is readily available in large quantities in the UK.
He said: �As many more jihadists return to this country there is
a growing chance [of a chlorine bomb attack]. That to me puts it
through the threshold where we should look into this seriously.�
Chlorine � which is used to purify water and disinfect surfaces
� can be lethal if inhaled.
IS militants can get the necessary amount of chlorine from a
cylinder container on the back of household fridges.
It seems to me that the UK has been rather lax about its
regulations on chemicals. Certainly other countries have been
too; but don't forget it was British companies which sold the
Assad regime the precursor chemicals to make nerve gas, and the
British government did nothing to stop it. From nti.org
http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/british-chemical-exports-syria-prompt-outcry-par…
"The decision of the present government to give two export
license approvals for dual-use chemicals to Syria in January
2012 after the civil war had started in Syria in 2011 was
irresponsible," asserts a report published on Wednesday by the
House of Commons Arms Export Controls Committees.
According to the United Kingdom's Conservative Party-led
coalition government, British officials lacked any legal basis
to deny licenses for exporting sodium fluoride and potassium
fluoride to the Middle Eastern country.
Oh yeah? Why didn't they pass appropriate laws then?
Separately, the lawmakers criticized as "highly questionable"
the prior British government's approval of five sales of
weapon-usable chemicals to Syria between July 2004 and 2010.
The United Kingdom is now taking part in an international effort
to help dispose of Syria's chemical arsenal, following last
year's deadly attacks against civilians and a move by Damascus
to acknowledge its stockpile and eliminate it as a new member of
the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Who paid to dispose of those chemicals, I wonder? The British
taxpayesr and perhaps taxpayers from other countries, or the
companies who profited from the sales?
I wonder why those chemicals were destroyed if they had monetary
value and were legal to sell. Why not sell them again? Or
has the law changed finally so selling such chemicals is no
longer allowed?
I also wonder why no effort was made to recycle chlorine from
these refrigerators. Are fluorocarbons still being used in new
refrigerators? Is it being phased out?
*****************************************************
You are viewing proxied material from gopher.createaforum.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.