WMD (Political)

[R. Richard]

This last weekend I discovered some information about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The information is from Investor’s Business Daily. Comments?

Bush didn’t lie!

Recently declassified CIA report:
Since 2003 Coalition forces have found about 500 weapons armed with mustard gas or sarin gas agents. Such weapons are weapons of mass destruction. The weapons thus far found are from the days of the Iraq-Iran war and are “degraded.” However, they “remain hazardous and potentially lethal.” The weapons could have been sold on the black market and been used inside or outside Iraq by terrorists. Such weapons are being actively sought by terrorist groups.

Why was the discovery of such weapons not publicized before this? Because to have publicized the discovery would have led to questions about WHERE Saddam got such weapons. The answer to the question very probably includes Russia and the USA. Why did Saddam not declare the weapons? Saddam would have then been questioned about where the chemical agents were obtained/manufactured. The answers would have required Saddam to reveal his sources for the raw materials and the manufacturing information. If Saddam told, he would have revealed his sources for the illegal stuff and he would have received no more help from those sources.

In addition, the UN, in a March 2003 report said that Saddam possessed a massive amount of WMD material that was know to exist, but was unaccounted for. The WMD material included: 6,526 chemical bombs, 550 mustard gas shells, 2,062 tons of mustard gas precoursers, 8,445 liters of anthrax, 3.9 tons of VX nerve agent and 15.000 chemical weapons.

Just prior to the Coalition invasion of Iraq, spy satellites revealed truck caravans going from Iraq to Syria. There were also a number of airplane flights from Iraq to Syria. Iraqi General Georges Sada tells in a book he wrote, that Iraq moved WMD materials out of Iraq and into Syria using Russian logistical help.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

No comment!

 

[3113]

Keep up to date, Richard. This in just yesterday:

CIA officer claims US ignored warnings about WMD errors
Sun Jun 25, 10:15 AM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - US administration officials chose to ignore a CIA officer's warnings that an Iraqi defector's claims of purported biological labs made by Iraq for germ warfare were unproven.

Sunday's edition of The Washington Post quoted veteran CIA officer Tyler Drumheller who, it said, "recognized the source, an Iraqi defector suspected of being mentally unstable and a liar.

"The CIA officer took his pen," he recounted in an interview, "and crossed out the whole paragraph" in a statement to be presented by then secretary of state Colin Powell to the United Nations.

"A few days later, the lines were back in the speech. Powell stood before the UN Security Council on February 5 (2003) and said: 'We have first-hand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails.'"

Drumheller was stunned, the newspaper reported.

"We thought we had taken care of the problem," it quoted the man who was the CIA's European operations chief before retiring last year, as saying. "But I turn on the television and there it was, again."

The newspaper said that although the US government had "acknowledged intelligence failures over Iraqi weapons claims that led to war", new accounts by former insiders such as Drumheller shed light on "one of the most spectacular failures of all".

This was, it added: "How US intelligence agencies were eagerly drawn in by reports about a troubled defector's claims of secret germ factories in the Iraqi desert. The mobile labs were never found."

Drumheller "described in extensive interviews repeated attempts to alert top CIA officials to problems with the defector, code-named Curveball, in the days before the Powell speech," The Post said.

Yet "the warnings triggered debates within the CIA but ultimately made no visible impact at the top, current and former intelligence officials said," it added.

"In briefing Powell before his UN speech, George Tenet, then the CIA director, personally vouched for the accuracy of the mobile-lab claim, according to participants in the briefing.

"Tenet now says he did not learn of the problems with Curveball until much later and that he received no warnings from Drumheller or anyone else," the Post said.

In late 2002, the Bush administration began scouring intelligence files for reports of Iraqi weapons threats, the newspaper went on.

"Drumheller was asked to press a counterpart from a European intelligence agency for direct access to Curveball," who was living in Germany and described himself as a chemical engineer.

"Other officials confirmed that it was the German intelligence service," the Post said.

"The German official declined but then offered a startlingly candid assessment," Drumheller recalled.

"'He said, 'I think the guy is a fabricator,'" Drumheller was quoted as saying, declining to name the official.

"He said: 'We also think he has psychological problems. We could never validate his reports.'"

Although "no American had ever interviewed Curveball, analysts with the CIA's Center for Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control believed the informant's technical descriptions were too detailed to be fabrications," the Post said.

It was Germany's intelligence agency BND that passed along Curveball's stories to Washington, the report said.

"Over time, the informant generated more than 100 intelligence reports on secret Iraqi weapons programs -- the only such reports from an informant claiming to have visited and worked in mobile labs. Other informants, also later discredited, had claimed indirect knowledge of mobile labs," the report said.

 

[R. Richard]

Isn't it interesting to watch the progression of new media positions.

1) Bush lied! [Oops, there were WMDs.]

2) Well, the WMD were old and probably ineffective! [They were still WMDs and required to be reported under the Iraqi surrender agreement.]

3) We found a doubtful report of biological warfare! [They haven't found biological warefare labs yet. Chemical labs, yes. WMDs, yes. Partially enriched unranium, yes. However, no biological labs yet! Ignore the fact that the UN reports that Saddam had anthrax. Anthrax is a biological agent.]

The media is determined to continue to find ways to attack President Bush. As each new release of information reveals that Bush's view of the Iraqi situation was reasonably accurate, the media finds a new way to beg the question, change the subject and continue the attack on President Bush. I don't feel that it is fair reporting.

 

[neonlyte]

Isn't it interesting to watch the progression of new media positions.

1) Bush lied! [Oops, there were WMDs.]

2) Well, the WMD were old and probably ineffective! [They were still WMDs and required to be reported under the Iraqi surrender agreement.]

3) We found a doubtful report of biological warfare! [They haven't found biological warefare labs yet. Chemical labs, yes. WMDs, yes. Partially enriched unranium, yes. However, no biological labs yet! Ignore the fact that the UN reports that Saddam had anthrax. Anthrax is a biological agent.]

The media is determined to continue to find ways to attack President Bush. As each new release of information reveals that Bush's view of the Iraqi situation was reasonably accurate, the media finds a new way to beg the question, change the subject and continue the attack on President Bush. I don't feel that it is fair reporting.

When were the media ever fair to the status quo? The equivalence would be a weather report saying some places had cloud and other places had sunshine. The media will only report the torrential storm that stuck the hamlet of 'Howthefuckdidthathappen', without going into the details of the rain dance performed by the Womens Guild some days before.

I've lost track of WMD debate, but I'm pretty sure when they were front page daily news most didn't think the WMD's being refered to dated from the Iran/Iraq war two decades earlier. Trying to equate those weapons to Powells speech smacks of clutching at straws. The media may be many things, but on the whole, they don't like being deceived.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

I've lost track of WMD debate, but I'm pretty sure when they were front page daily news most didn't think the WMD's being refered to dated from the Iran/Iraq war two decades earlier. Trying to equate those weapons to Powells speech smacks of clutching at straws.

Only from the angle of someone who opposes those being accused, neon. I can't specifically remember any references being made to the origin of said weapons, and while the debate did seem to indirectly imply nukes, indirectly is a key word. Those reading the reports (from various sources, both liberal and conservative -- cuz let's face it, there is no real happy-medium any more, and both are playing the deception game) seem to jump to the conclusions and hold the other side accountable for the conclusions they've arrived at.

The media may be many things, but on the whole, they don't like being deceived.

The media is responsible for the majority of the deceptions, neon. The President makes a speech, then eight-thousand analysts tell us what to believe he said. Same with those who oppose him/them (the administration). It's easily as conceivable that 3113's article is BS as R. Richard's.

Both sides are lieing to us.

Q_C

 

[neonlyte]

Only from the angle of someone who opposes those being accused, neon. I can't specifically remember any references being made to the origin of said weapons, and while the debate did seem to indirectly imply nukes, indirectly is a key word. Those reading the reports (from various sources, both liberal and conservative -- cuz let's face it, there is no real happy-medium any more, and both are playing the deception game) seem to jump to the conclusions and hold the other side accountable for the conclusions they've arrived at.



The media is responsible for the majority of the deceptions, neon. The President makes a speech, then eight-thousand analysts tell us what to believe he said. Same with those who oppose him/them (the administration). It's easily as conceivable that 3113's article is BS as R. Richard's.

Both sides are lieing to us.

Q_C

Q_C, I might have been a little clearer.
Trying to link the Iran/Iraq weapons now to Powells speech smacks of desperation - I think we all know we were being deceived to a degree. It is this form linkage that the media tends to jump on, they see it as attempted cover up. If they (the media) had done their job properly in the first place, instead rolling with the tide as the majority choose, the full details may have been properly placed in the public arena. Difficult, they had no access to source, and largely went with 'what sells newspapers'.
I'm not attempting to defend the media, I have no idea of the rights and wrongs of the entire WMD affair, since - as you say - lies are scattered from both sides. I'm only grateful the affair did not escalate beyond the already terrible loss of life on all sides. If Saddam had WMD's I'm reasonably certain he would have used them during the initial stages of the conflict.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Q_C, I might have been a little clearer.
Trying to link the Iran/Iraq weapons now to Powells speech smacks of desperation - I think we all know we were being deceived to a degree. It is this form linkage that the media tends to jump on, they see it as attempted cover up. If they (the media) had done their job properly in the first place, instead rolling with the tide as the majority choose, the full details may have been properly placed in the public arena. Difficult, they had no access to source, and largely went with 'what sells newspapers'.

True, but I think we're actually agreeing here. They reported what they saw, and reported it as in full. Bush, and his administration (more significantly their speech-writers) have shown their inability to be specific and fully explanatory, but lacking such doesn't necessarily imply dishonesty in full. We can see this in concerns to how he/they handled the presentation of the 1/2 % tax cut to the wealthy during his second election campaign. Perhaps I merely didn't hear of it, but the effect this tax cut was intended seems to be to give some level of cushioning (however minor it may seem) to the major corporations that employ so many but are headed down the same path as GM and Ford. I don't recall Bush making any clear statements of this in his debates, or in his campaign speeches, but I think it's clear that it was in his intentions somewhere. In short, you really can't blame him for not being clear once, when the sumbitch's never clear. It simply doesn't make him evil.

I'm only grateful the affair did not escalate beyond the already terrible loss of life on all sides. If Saddam had WMD's I'm reasonably certain he would have used them during the initial stages of the conflict.

Herein lies the question: When could he have used them? Realistically, he would have to have known he would lose, and therefore be found and captured. That being said, during the initial conflict, a lot of the more devastating attacks by the US involved bombing runs, and at least some of those attacks used "drones" (I believe that was what they were called, but I may be mistaken) which bore no human pilots at all. When the American troops engaged Iraqi military, the two were immersed, enough so that many of these weapons would have affected not one, but both sides. He was being watched far too closely to imitate the actions of Chemical Ali and gas his own without having to face consequences after the fact. Knowing he would be tried, this would most likely have put him before the UN, as opposed to before the court system in Iraq. A move to not use such weapons, but instead to attempt to hide them (had he actually had them, and it seems the jury's still out on this matter--save for those of us self-righteous enough to belive we know everything when we merely have assumptions and accusations to lean on) seems more intelligent on his part than anything else.

Q_C

 

[neonlyte]

In the early 1970's I was the project architect for the Iraq Ministry of Research and Development working for a UK company commissioned by the UK government to design the facility. Part of the brief was to design underground accommodation for 15,000 people capable of withstanding nuclear attack and of operating for a period of six months post attack. Full design drawings, including classified designs by the UK Ministry of Defence, were delivered to Iraq. In the event, they went to war with Iran and to the best of my knowledge the facility was never constructed.

My fear, during the initial phase of the campaign, was that Iraq may have used the designs to construct deep underground facilities. The original design had the accommodation located below the Ministry building - a grandiose 'palace like' structure - heard this before? If he did have WMD's, I think that is where they would have been, I also think he wouldn't have used them until the invasion commenced, what would have been the point of employing them against drones?

Curiously, none of the design team have ever been asked to share their knowledge of the designs though it is clear to me that the focus of allied activity on the 'palace structures' indicated the allies were aware of the threat potential. As to whether he would have used them if they had existed, I think the probability based on past action is yes. What needs to be remembered is the pre-war UN weapons inspectors went through this same process of inspecting all of the 'palace structures'. Either that exercise was so wholly compromised they couldn't do their job, or the allies choose not to believe their reports - it is history.

We can probably assume Sadam had no usable / current WMD's, we can't assume we knew that before the event.

 

[3113]

True, but I think we're actually agreeing here. They reported what they saw, and reported it as in full. Bush, and his administration (more significantly their speech-writers) have shown their inability to be specific and fully explanatory, but lacking such doesn't necessarily imply dishonesty in full.

You're splitting hairs--omission, exaggeration, misinformation is a form of dishonesty. Though you are right: lying doesn't make a person evil. There's plenty of other things George has done to make him evil.

Blaming the media is rather like blaming a victim for walking through a dark alley at night. They shouldn't have, and it's dangerous...but no one *deserves* to be mugged. And the media--or more precisely--the American people, did not deserve to be jerked around, made to feel that they and the world were in immediate and deadly danger from Iraq's WMD--in whatever form they existed. Odd article that "Bush didn't lie!' by the way, as every country on this planet has some or more of the weapons it mentioned. And some or any of those weapons, from any country, could be sold to terrorists--so it's nice to know we have an excuse to invade any country on this planet because they *might* sell WMD to terrorists. Lucky for us, Al Quada and Saddam hated each other and Saddam was more likely to use those weapons on Al than on the U.S.

Or doesn't that matter?

Why go on with this stupid dance? Bush found some guy to say, "There's MWD in Iraq that can destroy the U.S.!"--and hid the fact that this was not a reliable source so that the U.S. would have an excuse to got to war with Iraq and Bush and his neo-con friends would get what they wanted. End story.

To say, "Oh, he didn't REALLY lie...." is ludicrious. Why defend this jerking around which has resulted in billions of OUR DOLLARS going down the toilet and 2,500 American lives being wasted overseas, the destablization of a foreign country and region...etc, etc, etc. Is jerking us around with exaggerations, misinformation, omission of real facts so much better than lying outright?

I honestly don't think so, and I don't think this perpetual tap-dance to hide from that reality and maintain a president who keeps on exaggerating, misinforming and leaving out information is doing any of us any good.

 

[R. Richard]

We can probably assume Sadam had no usable / current WMD's, we can't assume we knew that before the event.

I must strongly disagree. A couple of Iraqi Generals have written books in which they state that Saddam did have WMD and that the weapons were moved to Syria just before the invasion. If this seems a bit unrealistic, let me remind you that Iraqi aircraft were flown to Iran just before the invasion.

American spy satellites recorded the passage of numerous truck caravans and aircraft flights from Iraq into Syria just before the invasion. Of course, no one other than the Iraqis knows what the truck caravans and aircraft flights contained, it is highly likely that they contained WMD.

The Coalition forces have found numerous buried record caches of banned programs that Saddam intended to start up after the US went away.

You seem content to pick at the very minor point of possibly obsolte and unusable WMDs. If the WMDs were truly unusable, why did Saddam not declare them and let them be destroyed? He would have taken some of the pressure off himself and let the UN destroy only useless items. Of course, there would have been some difficult questions, but he then had Baghdad Bob.

 

[neonlyte]

I must strongly disagree. A couple of Iraqi Generals have written books in which they state that Saddam did have WMD and that the weapons were moved to Syria just before the invasion. If this seems a bit unrealistic, let me remind you that Iraqi aircraft were flown to Iran just before the invasion.

American spy satellites recorded the passage of numerous truck caravans and aircraft flights from Iraq into Syria just before the invasion. Of course, no one other than the Iraqis knows what the truck caravans and aircraft flights contained, it is highly likely that they contained WMD.

The Coalition forces have found numerous buried record caches of banned programs that Saddam intended to start up after the US went away.

You seem content to pick at the very minor point of possibly obsolte and unusable WMDs. If the WMDs were truly unusable, why did Saddam not declare them and let them be destroyed? He would have taken some of the pressure off himself and let the UN destroy only useless items. Of course, there would have been some difficult questions, but he then had Baghdad Bob.

Yes I do remember that. I begs the question why has nothing been done about it?

The allies (and I firmly lump the UK in with the USA) have had control of Iraq for two years give or take. I may be wrong but I cannot recall one single accredited Iraqi being produced to confirm the extent of Saddam's WMD programme. It does appear the only people produced to give evidence have been discreditied by one or another agency.

I'm inclined to the view that Saddam (not Iraq) had to be taken out of the equation, the means by which has been done and the collatoral damage in lives (Iraqi, USA & UK) and political reputations (USA and UK) has been high but not as high as it might have been if WMD's had been used. How different would be story if just one working viable WMD had been recovered. It's a story of shades that paints some darker than they are and others lighter than they might be, and it has a different colouring for each observer.

 

[gauchecritic]

Just prior to the Coalition invasion of Iraq, spy satellites revealed truck caravans going from Iraq to Syria. There were also a number of airplane flights from Iraq to Syria. Iraqi General Georges Sada tells in a book he wrote, that Iraq moved WMD materials out of Iraq and into Syria using Russian logistical help.

Seems to me that this is the paragraph They (whoever they are) is sneaking through. (note the old time bogey man for those that didn't appreciate the fall of mis-applied communism as much as they might)

Reuters: 10/2/2007 Speech by whichever helicopter/arms manufacturer monkey they elected last time.

"We explained in great detail (see above paragraph) last year the exact reasons why we are attacking Syria from midnight tonight. They have confirmed stockpiles of WMDs and could possibly deploy them within (insert hysterical number here) minutes."

 

[Katyusha]

Isn't it interesting to watch the progression of new media positions.

1) Bush lied! [Oops, there were WMDs.]

2) Well, the WMD were old and probably ineffective! [They were still WMDs and required to be reported under the Iraqi surrender agreement.]

3) We found a doubtful report of biological warfare! [They haven't found biological warefare labs yet. Chemical labs, yes. WMDs, yes. Partially enriched unranium, yes. However, no biological labs yet! Ignore the fact that the UN reports that Saddam had anthrax. Anthrax is a biological agent.]

The media is determined to continue to find ways to attack President Bush. As each new release of information reveals that Bush's view of the Iraqi situation was reasonably accurate, the media finds a new way to beg the question, change the subject and continue the attack on President Bush. I don't feel that it is fair reporting.

The media will always find ways to discredit our government, because discrediting the government brings in more ratings than championing the government. "If it bleeds, it leads," is their motto, and they hold to it like they've been superglued to it. They don't care about objectivity and they never did. If we wind up with a Democratic or third party president in 2008, they'll attack and discredit that person too, even though that person will probably be doing things much, much differently than Bush. Because of ratings, you will NEVER find fair reporting in the media. Everything they say will be true to the best of their knowledge (law prohibits them from making things up and I'm sure we've all seen what happens when it comes out that they DO make things up), but they will never fairly represent both sides of any issue.

 

[Katyusha]

You're splitting hairs--omission, exaggeration, misinformation is a form of dishonesty. Though you are right: lying doesn't make a person evil. There's plenty of other things George has done to make him evil.

Blaming the media is rather like blaming a victim for walking through a dark alley at night. They shouldn't have, and it's dangerous...but no one *deserves* to be mugged. And the media--or more precisely--the American people, did not deserve to be jerked around, made to feel that they and the world were in immediate and deadly danger from Iraq's WMD--in whatever form they existed. Odd article that "Bush didn't lie!' by the way, as every country on this planet has some or more of the weapons it mentioned. And some or any of those weapons, from any country, could be sold to terrorists--so it's nice to know we have an excuse to invade any country on this planet because they *might* sell WMD to terrorists. Lucky for us, Al Quada and Saddam hated each other and Saddam was more likely to use those weapons on Al than on the U.S.

Or doesn't that matter?

Why go on with this stupid dance? Bush found some guy to say, "There's MWD in Iraq that can destroy the U.S.!"--and hid the fact that this was not a reliable source so that the U.S. would have an excuse to got to war with Iraq and Bush and his neo-con friends would get what they wanted. End story.

To say, "Oh, he didn't REALLY lie...." is ludicrious. Why defend this jerking around which has resulted in billions of OUR DOLLARS going down the toilet and 2,500 American lives being wasted overseas, the destablization of a foreign country and region...etc, etc, etc. Is jerking us around with exaggerations, misinformation, omission of real facts so much better than lying outright?

We do also have to remember that Bush said in a press conference that there was evidence Iraq was directly involved in September 11th. They weren't. The most contact they had with Al Qaeda about the attack was a letter from bin Laden to Sadaam that went unanswered, as far as the 9-11 Commission could tell. From what I remember, he used THAT as a reason to go to war initially, then changed that to say that Iraq had WMD's that were a direct threat to U.S. security.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

You're splitting hairs--omission, exaggeration, misinformation is a form of dishonesty. Though you are right: lying doesn't make a person evil. There's plenty of other things George has done to make him evil.

Blaming the media is rather like blaming a victim for walking through a dark alley at night. They shouldn't have, and it's dangerous...but no one *deserves* to be mugged. And the media--or more precisely--the American people, did not deserve to be jerked around, made to feel that they and the world were in immediate and deadly danger from Iraq's WMD--in whatever form they existed.

Where did this come from? Perhaps you should read my posts before you respond to them. Read this again, I added a bit to clarify, though it's in brackets:

True, but I think we're actually agreeing here. They [the media] reported what they saw, and reported it as in full. Bush, and his administration (more significantly their speech-writers) have shown their inability to be specific and fully explanatory, but lacking such doesn't necessarily imply dishonesty in full.

Q_C

Bush and his crew, figured out a simple truth: Those who support him will do so regardless of what they're presented with. Those who do not will simply listen to his words and find holes, whether they exist or not. Based on that, he explains himself poorly, and gets away with it. That was what I was saying. The media reports what they see, and it has glaring holes in it, and the report it as complete, which is as wrong as anything Bush can say to you. It's also as wrong as anything Kerry or Edwards can say for that matter, or MaCaine (sp?) or Clinton.

To say, "Oh, he didn't REALLY lie...." is ludicrious. Why defend this jerking around which has resulted in billions of OUR DOLLARS going down the toilet and 2,500 American lives being wasted overseas, the destablization of a foreign country and region...etc, etc, etc. Is jerking us around with exaggerations, misinformation, omission of real facts so much better than lying outright?

I didn't say any of this. Period. Nor did I make mention of it, or anything that relates.

Blaming the media is rather like blaming a victim for walking through a dark alley at night. They shouldn't have, and it's dangerous...but no one *deserves* to be mugged.

This will matter when life is fair. It isn't; deal.

I honestly don't think so, and I don't think this perpetual tap-dance to hide from that reality and maintain a president who keeps on exaggerating, misinforming and leaving out information is doing any of us any good.

You just described every politician to ever serve any political office in the history of mankind. And no, they didn't lie any less than Bush. They just lied in a way you disapprove of less. That's what doesn't make him evil, or at least, any more evil than Clinton (either one) or any other politician in office.

I'll repeat what I've said in numerous threads in the past: Their job is to lie to us, because the American people won't vote for a candidate that tells the truth. The truth is, more often than not, they don't know what to do, any more than we would in their shoes.

Q_C

 

[R. Richard]

Blaming the media is rather like blaming a victim for walking through a dark alley at night. They shouldn't have, and it's dangerous...but no one *deserves* to be mugged. And the media--or more precisely--the American people, did not deserve to be jerked around, made to feel that they and the world were in immediate and deadly danger from Iraq's WMD--in whatever form they existed. Odd article that "Bush didn't lie!' by the way, as every country on this planet has some or more of the weapons it mentioned. And some or any of those weapons, from any country, could be sold to terrorists--so it's nice to know we have an excuse to invade any country on this planet because they *might* sell WMD to terrorists. Lucky for us, Al Quada and Saddam hated each other and Saddam was more likely to use those weapons on Al than on the U.S.

Or doesn't that matter?

From Wikipedia:
The VX nerve agent is the most well-known of the V-series of nerve agents. Its chemical name is O-ethyl-S-[2(diisopropylamino)ethyl] methylphosphonothioate and its molecular formula is C11H26NO2PS.

The only countries known to possess VX are the United States, United Kingdom, Russia, France and Syria. VX agent is considered an area denial weapon due to its physical properties.

Often regarded as the deadliest nerve agent created to date, as little as 200 micrograms is enough to kill an average person, depending on method of absorption.

From Wikipedia:
Cultivating anthrax spores can take minimal equipment and a first-year collegiate microbiological education. However, to make an aerosol form of anthrax suitable for biological warfare (the process of "weaponizing" the spores), requires extensive training and highly advanced equipment. Bentonite is one of the few substances identified publicly that helps reduce the static charge of anthrax spores (causing them to disperse more easily).

From Wikipedia:
Sulfur mustards are variations of "mustard gas" (bis-(2-chloroethyl) sulfide), which was first synthesised by Frederick Guthrie in 1860, though it is possible that it was developed as early as 1822 by M Depretz

The use of mustard gas is prohibited by the Geneva Convention. It is not difficult to make, but it is a trifle difficult to deploy as an aerosol which is required for really effective military use.

Chemical bombs are difficult to make in easily usable form. The problem is that the explosion tends to destroy much of the chemical. In an oversimplification, only a national government is really capable of producing a military chemical bomb.

Let me tell you how the international arms trade is conducted. In order to buy normal military weapons in quantity or special military weapons in any amount an item called an End User Certificate (EUC) is required. Some of the African government people can be bribed to issue an EUC that will allow a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) to buy certain quantities of, say, Kalashnikov rifles and the ammo to feed said rifles. Perhaps some fragmentation grenades and/or flash bangs might be obtained, if the guy you bribe is reasonably certain the stuff is not going to be used against a first [or even second] world country. There is NO WAY anyone is going to issue an EUC to a NGO to allow the NGO to buy VX, weapons grade anthrax, chemical bombs, etc. The probable targets for VX, weapons grade anthrax, chemical bombs, etc. tend to be national governments with large powerful armies and a dead man can't spend bribe money. [Trust me on this, I used to be in the business. If you know of a place whaere I can obtain an EUC that will allow me to buy VX, weapons grade anthrax, chemical bombs, etc., please let me know, as we can make a fortune!]

There is no way that any responsible government is going to sell VX, weapons grade anthrax, chemical bombs, etc. to a terrorist organization. Syria might want to do it, but they have a problem in that the stuff they sell to the terrorists might wind up being used against Syria. This last is not an imaginary threat, Saudi Arabia is currently under attack by radical Islamic groups. The Syrians will sell Hizbollah short range rockets to be used against Israel. If Hezbollah tries to use said short range rockets against Syria, Hezbollah will become very well acquainted with the Syrian Army.

Iraq under Saddam had a training facility a Salman Pak. You might Google up the terrorist groups who went through Salman Pak.

It is not unknown for a single device to be sold to a terrorist group for use in a very specific attack. The terrorist group is given the weapon at the last posssible moment and then the terrorist who is to deliver the device is very carefully watched.

Your idea of large groups of countries with the capability to produce advanced weapons is WRONG! The really nasty stuff and the systems to deliver it are the capability of a very small number of countries. In addition, most fo the people who are capable of producing the nasty stuff are well known to the other people who are producing the nasty stuff. When nasty stuff is misused, the misusers get a single visit from someone like the KGB. I say single visit, as there is no need for a second visit, ever.