Thread by @GosplanKomitet

oh wow it’s like 2021 all over again. anyways, there’s no real proof of anfal causing 20.000 deaths, let alone 63.000 or 100.000.

adding to that, anfal was a series of military operations by kurdish tribal forces aligned with the govt organized as light infantry battalions specifically targeting rebelling paramilitary organizations like the puk. the goal of the operation was to force the fighters into iran.

furthermore gas was not only not commonly used during anfal, in fact it was not used during the campaigns at all. halabja is its own case as it wasn’t ever a part of anfal, which i’ll get to shortly.

it was proven repeatedly that cyanide gas (which the iraqis did not have and we don’t know whether the iranians had or not) was used in the town itself whereas in the countryside a mix of chemical weapons were used which were in iraq’s inventory.

leading to the most logical reconstruction of events being iran using cyanide gas to quickly seize halabja, preparing to seize a critical dam which would threaten baghdad’s water supply and iraq using chemical weapons on the countryside near halabja to halt the iranian advance.

which means a: the usage of gas by either side was not deliberate policy to wipe out an entire people but rather an attempt to shape the battlefield and b: as it was iran which struck halabja itself with cyanide gas it would be them who’s be responsible for much of the bloodshed.

note: cyanide is a disorientating, lethal and quickly dissipating gas meaning it would be perfect to use in an urban assault (if you don’t care about civilian casualties) whereas mustard gas is a heavy gas that’s slow to dissipate making it very useful to stop enemy movement

the sources are “just war principles: a condemnation of war in iraq”, “wars of modern babylon”, “oil and the kurdish question” and the various newspaper clippings from nyt which i provided.

ba’ath nation takes another W