Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (41089)	8/30/2002 11:22:53 PM
From: SirRealist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I was not clear enough in my response, CB... I was referring to non-Kuwaiti folks. Among the Kuwaitis, there were a couple of others. However: >>But Mr. Roth said that Middle East Watch had interviewed about two dozen health professionals who had worked in all of Kuwait's maternity hospitals throughout the occupation, and that despite many second-hand reports, "no one we spoke to was able to confirm any instance in which the Iraqis had taken incubators or left babies to die." He said the human rights group had not talked to the three medical workers mentioned in Mr. Gnemh's cable. Ambassador Gnemh said the embassy was told that approximately 250 babies might have been buried in mass graves at Al-Riqqa cemetery in Kuwait in August and September 1990. Mr. Roth sharply disputed this, saying that Middle East Watch investigators had thoroughly examined the records at Al-Riqqa, which appear to have been meticulously kept. << So at this point, the only 'verification' comes from the one nurse you cited, even though Roth noted "Middle East Watch had interviewed about two dozen health professionals who had worked in all of Kuwait's maternity hospitals throughout" and none of them confirmed her account. None of the previous stories held up. You're basing your position on the claim of one person who came forward AFTER the other stories were debunked; if that occurred, one baby died. So your point may be correct, there might be one tiny kernel of truth behind the reports of mass extermination of babies. Of course, none of the other nurses have gone public, not even the one who allegedly held that dying infant. And there's been no independent verification of that one witness who reported it a year after the war. I'm not into pills. They dull the faculties. And the very fact that the ambassador's daughter was not identified as such and was told what to say, indicates a clear intent to deceive. Lacking independent confirmation of the one witness your position rests on, it's a mighty thin argument you bear.