[Peace] NY times piece on Halabja

[pfmueth at pop.ameritech.net]

At 8:29 AM -0600 2/1/03, Margaret E. Kosal wrote:
>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.

Which might have been done. . .we don't have access to the classified 
DIA document that this ex-CIA analyst is citing, probably at some 
risk to himself. He wasn't entirely precise in his use of language, 
but regrettably there are enough incidents of the use of various gas 
weapons that symptoms of various products can be differentiated.
As this was a classified document, one can probably credit it with 
not being part of some propaganda campaign tilting toward Iraq.

>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.

I disagree with this,  one doesn't need scientific certainty to call 
in to question commonplaces in the current discourse about the 
Iran-Iraq war.
If you notice Peletiere doesn't assert that Iraq  wasn't the source 
of the gas, just that chemicals were used on both sides and there is 
ambiguity
which should be acknowledged.


>- 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.

Of course. pushing the limits of allowable debate is risky, but I 
would urge people to continue this effort, but one should avoid being 
doctrinaire in style.

Given tha Bush and Rummie and their ilk get by with out much 
challenge by the "press corp" I feel citizens need to rise to the 
occasion.

cheers