T O P I C ��� R E V I E W
|
Grokca
Member # 722
|
posted
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/THO209A.html
Seem Saddam my not have gassed the Kurds.
|
Grokca
Member # 722
|
posted
Nevermind nothing to see here. http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2002/msg00034.html
|
First of Two
Member # 16
|
posted
Heh. Whose point did that make?
Some people will say all sorts of things.
|
MinutiaeMan
Member # 444
|
posted
It's interesting theories, but as First says, it's a lot of hot air... neither of these guys has solid proof, although the argument on the second page that the sustained nature of the attack (48 hours) implicates Iraq.
Um... Iran didn't have chemical weapons? I think he's inhaled some gas...
|
TSN
Member # 31
|
posted
I'm not sure I understand how, even assuming Iraq was responsible, Hussein was gassing "his own people". It says that if the Iranians did it, it must have been due to a mistake, because the Kurds were supporters of Iran. If that's the case, why is it surprising that Hussein would bomb them? Granted, the town was full of civilians, but the US bombed far more civilians during WW2, and no-one complains about that...
|
|