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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: twmoore who wrote (51796)	7/28/2004 12:57:39 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

The jury is still out about Halabja, from what I can discern. There are some Kurdish websites out there that show post-attack video footage (I don't have them handy to me right now, but do a search).. If one looks at the bodies, many of the pictures lack any sign of mustard gas exposure (massive blistering.. etc).. Which has led some to believe they were killed by a "blood agent", which caused them to suffocate. And it was Iran that predominantly used blood agents during the Iran-Iraq war.. Some folks believe that both sides used chemical weapons on Halabja, but that the Iranians were smarter about using it as a propaganda ploy against Saddam's regime. As for Saddam, I highly doubt that he personally and specifically ordered that Halabja be gassed.. Few political leaders would involve themselves to such an extent in determining where weapons were to be used to best tactical advantage. That would be the job of his generals.. So yes, he could legally claim that he only read about it in the newspapers. But can he say that he issued written orders that civilians should not be attacked? And did he punish those who DID attack innocent civilians? Hawk