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
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
the faction of the ba’ath which supported the nasserist coup in 63 and the al-bakr/saddam faction which took power in 68 were different from one another and indeed, openly hostile towards one another
both the mensheviks and bolsheviks were part of the same RSDLP. yet, it would be crazy to think and creative narratives about the bolsheviks by looking at what the mensheviks did or who they worked with.
“the ba’athists” were never a monolith, by the very nature of that party (both in iraq & in syria) it was choc full of various factions, circles and working groups which rarely collaborated, if ever, and openly held each other with disdain
the 63 coup was done chiefly by nasserite military officers who got the support of the iraqi ba’ath’s leftist, anti-aflaq wing (led by ali salih as-sa’di). said nasserites purged the ba’ath only a couple months after this.
the al-bakr/saddam wing of the party (loyal to aflaq) only took power in 68, in a takeover which had zero foreign backing.
iraq used mustard gas (slow dissipating) to shell the countryside of halabja to impede iranian movements. iran used cyanide (fast dissipating) inside halabja to wreck the iraqi garrison there and allow their storm units to quickly seize the town.
after a point it becomes completely irrelevant whether some civilians died because they inhaled iraqi produced or iranian produced gas. point is, it was a military struggle and both sides targeted the other’s manoeuvre units.
“As Turkey's largest industrial holding, we operate in petrochemicals, refining, natural gas trade, transmission and distribution sectors.”
“We transfer our production power to a sustainable future with our value chain extending from the source to the end user within the framework of the clustering model.” This is how the Turkish division of the Azeri oil company SOCAR introduces itself.