[Peace] NY times piece on Halabja

[Margaret E. Kosal]

Paul & all -

The op-ed has gotten a very small bit of discussion on the cbw 
(chembioweapons) *technical* discussion lists.

The most troubling part to me was "The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, 
however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a 
cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use."

That's too vague - 'condition of the bodies' ... but i realize that the NY 
Times is not a scientific journal - it's corporate where the spectacle 
rules.  Contrary to the magickal world of television shows, you cannot look 
at a corpse, and say, "Gosh, that must be the result of cyanide..." 
etc.  It is, however, fairly easy to determine via simple blood tests.

It's well known & established that the Iraq had sulfur-based vesicant 
(blister agents, e.g., mustard gas) and crude production of nerve 
agents.  i don't know off the top of my head if Iraq had hydrogen cyanide 
or cyanogen chloride.  Frankly, cyanide gas is a lot easier to make than 
nerve agents.  Most nerve "gases" are low volatility liquids, however, 
sarin (GB) is an exception, in which the volatility is similar to water.

My final conclusion is that this reinforces the absolute necessity of
- rigorously speaking within one's knowledge base ... there will almost 
always be someone out there who knows more.
- rigorously differentiating between verifiable/verified data and 
hypothesis.  Proof by assertion only gets one so far.
- maintaining credibility - once lost is very hard to regain.  If one 
speaks against 'common sense' or predominant thought, one will be 
challenged.  Be prepared.  And to be conscious that loss of credibility can 
effect more than just oneself - it can damage a whole movement.

Namaste,
Margaret

(PhD UIUC Chemistry ... as was pointed out to me Thursday, credentials can 
be useful ... even if i have a tendency to downplay mine.)

At 22:11 1/31/2003 -0600, pfmueth at mail1-0.chcgil.ameritech.net wrote:
>This op-ed is amazing, that it's published at all and that it contains the 
>hegemony argument and the water issue at the end . ..
>I reckon that this last might be used to discredit it in some circles.
>
>I did hear some inside the beltway commentary (some usatoday journalist on 
>the Diane Rehm show -WAMU) that the ambiguity  of origin somehow explains 
>the silence of the Reagan and Bush administration contemporaneously, i.e. 
>that they weren't  sure who was responsible for the atrocity. .  no one 
>challenged this absurdity, Iraq was using mustard gas at the same time, 
>and could be condemned "evenhandedly" Of course one should recall that 
>Reagan was "evenhandedly" arming  both sides at the time, and Kissinger 
>said let them kill each other off. . . .