The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[casi] Beware of Frankenstein Scientists!

Dear Eric & List,

Firstly, thanks for directing us to the site of the original document,
'Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities'. However, had I not known that you
were a respected academic, I would have considered your opinions, on this
issue, somewhat naive. It certainly seems you are, so to speak,
barking up the wrong tree, on this one. No, as you say, there is no mention
of "bombing". The document was published, as I understand it, in
the first days of the Gulf War. You know, of course, that "collateral
damage" means killing civilians. Military language, if anyone needs
reminding, is often coded, using clandestine expressions, or even slang.
We, surely, must try to understand the words, yes, but also the spirit
of any message. Here are a few examples from the military document: "Iraq's
overall water treatment will suffer a slow probably will take
at least six months (to June 1991) before the system is fully degraded"
"Incidences of disease, including possible epidemics, will become probable."
Very crucially, the last sentence, in this, very lengthy, document,
re-iterates: "Full degradation of the water treatment system probably will
take at least another six months." If you really believe there is "a sheer
lack of attention to that human cost" etc. then, sorry, but we will have to
differ. My own belief is that this was part of a callously pre-concieved
plan. Within the context, let's direct ourselves to whom the File was from:
"DIA WASHINGTON DC"=US Defense Intelligence Agency.
Via "NMIST NET"=National Military Support Team. To: "CENTCOM"= US Central
Command. There are, but that may be another topic, further military acronyms
in the document. Perhaps, in Dylan's words, "The answer, my friend, is
blowin' in the wind", in asking this: Should we,
in considering whether, or not, destruction of Iraq's water systems
was deliberate policy give US/UK military establishments the benefit of
the doubt? No prizes for guessing my answer!

Bert G.

Worried what your kids see online? Protect them better with MSN 8

Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]