The Limits of Soviet Airpower: The Failure of Military Coerc

[Sayeret]

The Limits of Soviet Airpower: The Failure of Military Coercion in Afghanistan, 1979-89

http://www.lib.unb.ca/Texts/JCS/bin/get5.cgi?directory=fall99/&filename=WESTERMA.htm

[M4ko]

coercion and deciet is US's speciality, just like the devil's.

[NicNZ]

The article definately portrays Soviet military doctrine as a very cumbersome and painfully predictable mechanism, particularly in an unconventional combat environment.

Witness
The original armored sweep evolved into a hammer-and-anvil type of operation, intended to crush resistance forces between the advancing armor and a blocking force deployed ahead of it; so slow, cumbersome, and unimaginative were these attacks that the resistance could either avoid contact or exploit the situation operationally.
and

The offensive did eventually succeed in reestablishing control over the floor of the Panjshir valley, for the first time since 1978, at the cost of between 300 and 400 Soviet casualties. However, the campaign was only a partial success, as the besieged mujahideen simply disappeared into the surrounding hills to await the inevitable Soviet withdrawal. After a few weeks the Soviet forces did leave, making the victory decidedly pyrrhic for the Russians and their DRA allies. However, still hoping for a set-piece battle, the Soviets repeated the offensive into Panjshir in late August with the same result. In this offensive, the Soviets lost approximately 300 men in occupying the valley floor, and again withdrew after several weeks, leaving the valley once more in the hands of the mujahideen

[Dima-RussianArms]

the nine-year occupation of Afghanistan included the employment of the full spectrum of Soviet conventional weapons and a diverse range of their chemical weapons inventory in an attempt to defeat the mujahideen
And that is where the author lost his credibility - in the first sentence of the article...
SU didn't use chemical weapons in Afganistan, simple like that.


Sayeret, always meant to ask you, why are you so bent on pushing anti-soviet/russian bs and propaganda?
I mean overwhelming majority of your posts have something negative to say about that particular part of the planet, what is your agenda or is it simple hatred?
Are your parents/ancestors russian-jews, is that it?

[NicNZ]

Dima, all respect to you and so forth but that article paints a believable picture of the Soviets using chemical weapons. The article refers to a combination of eyewitness evidence

The eyewitness account of a Dutch journalist, who filmed Mi-24 Hind helicopters in two attacks dropping canisters that released a yellow cloud that killed at least one person, offered additional evidence of chemical use.

and circumstantial evidence

The Soviet use of chemical agents in Afghanistan should not have been a surprise. The Soviets had invested heavily in chemical munitions.19 In fact, Soviet doctrine called for the use of chemical agents in both offensive and defensive roles. In short, chemical operations were part and parcel of standard Soviet doctrine for conventional operations.

Then again, the article doesnt go much further those two quotes that I have mentioned. Perhaps that is all the evidence there is.

[2RHPZ]

Sayeret, always meant to ask you, why are you so bent on pushing anti-soviet/russian bs and propaganda? I mean overwhelming majority of your posts have something negative to say about that particular part of the planet, what is your agenda or is it simple hatred?

I am often to this section and have not noticed anything like that ... BTW, I guess that something like "anti-soviet propaganda" doesn´t exist ... We can not call facts about Empire of evil like that ...


Are your parents/ancestors russian-jews, is that it?

... there is also another sort of people. Those who had "the best" experience with "voluntary" hosting of your troops in the past ...

[Sergei]

Dima, all respect to you and so forth but that article paints a believable picture of the Soviets using chemical weapons. The article refers to a combination of eyewitness evidence

The eyewitness account of a Dutch journalist, who filmed Mi-24 Hind helicopters in two attacks dropping canisters that released a yellow cloud that killed at least one person, offered additional evidence of chemical use.

and circumstantial evidence

The Soviet use of chemical agents in Afghanistan should not have been a surprise. The Soviets had invested heavily in chemical munitions.19 In fact, Soviet doctrine called for the use of chemical agents in both offensive and defensive roles. In short, chemical operations were part and parcel of standard Soviet doctrine for conventional operations.

Then again, the article doesnt go much further those two quotes that I have mentioned. Perhaps that is all the evidence there is.

The article actually states two things:
1. The Soviet Union certainly possesed capabilities and quantities to wage chemical warfare.
2. There are no traces or facts or witnesses that it was used in Afgan war.

Jesus, how do you read those articles?

[Sergei]

Sayeret, always meant to ask you, why are you so bent on pushing anti-soviet/russian bs and propaganda? I mean overwhelming majority of your posts have something negative to say about that particular part of the planet, what is your agenda or is it simple hatred?

I am often to this section and have not noticed anything like that ... BTW, I guess that something like "anti-soviet propaganda" doesn´t exist ... We can not call facts about Empire of evil like that ...


Are your parents/ancestors russian-jews, is that it?

... there is also another sort of people. Those who had "the best" experience with "voluntary" hosting of your troops in the past ...


US troops are also "voluntarily" staying in lots of countries. And they rape local people too. Okinawa is the latest example. So your logic doesn't apply.

[NicNZ]

The article actually states two things:
1. The Soviet Union certainly possesed capabilities and quantities to wage chemical warfare.
2. There are no traces or facts or witnesses that it was used in Afgan war.

Jesus, how do you read those articles?

It certainly states the first point but I dont see where it states the second.

[2RHPZ]

Sayeret, always meant to ask you, why are you so bent on pushing anti-soviet/russian bs and propaganda? I mean overwhelming majority of your posts have something negative to say about that particular part of the planet, what is your agenda or is it simple hatred?

I am often to this section and have not noticed anything like that ... BTW, I guess that something like "anti-soviet propaganda" doesn´t exist ... We can not call facts about Empire of evil like that ...


Are your parents/ancestors russian-jews, is that it?

... there is also another sort of people. Those who had "the best" experience with "voluntary" hosting of your troops in the past ...


US troops are also "voluntarily" staying in lots of countries. And they rape local people too. Okinawa is the latest example. So your logic doesn't apply.

No offends, but my logic is something that you can not understand.

[Sergei]

Sayeret, always meant to ask you, why are you so bent on pushing anti-soviet/russian bs and propaganda? I mean overwhelming majority of your posts have something negative to say about that particular part of the planet, what is your agenda or is it simple hatred?

I am often to this section and have not noticed anything like that ... BTW, I guess that something like "anti-soviet propaganda" doesn´t exist ... We can not call facts about Empire of evil like that ...


Are your parents/ancestors russian-jews, is that it?

... there is also another sort of people. Those who had "the best" experience with "voluntary" hosting of your troops in the past ...


US troops are also "voluntarily" staying in lots of countries. And they rape local people too. Okinawa is the latest example. So your logic doesn't apply.

No offends, but my logic is something that you can not understand.

Carry on, soldier.

[GazB]

The eyewitness account of a Dutch journalist, who filmed Mi-24 Hind helicopters in two attacks dropping canisters that released a yellow cloud that killed at least one person, offered additional evidence of chemical use.

And where is this video? We are told specifics of the video but has anyone actually seen it? I would have thought that the many attempts by the Reagan administration to make claims of Soviet use of chemical weapons would have included such video if it ever existed.

US Government received claims of 47 separate chemical attacks with a claimed death toll of more than 3,000. . . .

47 attacks and 3,000 bodies to examine...

The majority of attacks occurred in the spring and summer of 1980 and 1981 at the high seasons of mujahideen manpower and supply infiltration into the country.20 The pattern of chemical weapons employment clearly indicates an effort to interdict these movements.


Maps of border regions that most experts claim the Soviet never controlled showing precise places and times of attacks, yet no actual physical evidence?

the Soviets could not eliminate the threat posed by a small, fractionalized and poorly armed insurgency.

Yes, such forces are always much easier to defeat than big organised forces that line up. Did the author of this article miss the difference between guerilla wars like Vietnam and Northern Ireland?



Until they can come up with concrete evidence that the Soviets used chem or bio weapons I will place such accusations in the same box as the so called Evil Soviet boobytrapped dolls... dolls filled with explosive and rigged to blow up when hugged by children. Later found to have been made in New York. :roll:

[Igor01]

How dare you people doubt that Soviets used chemical weapons in Afghanistan? I mean fer Christ's sakes, it's an article published on the internet, what other proof do you need?

BTW, here's another little-known fact - Zionists Nuke Downtown Beirut - Again! (http://www.vialls.com/beirut/micronuke.html)

[Sayeret]

Sayeret, always meant to ask you, why are you so bent on pushing anti-soviet/russian bs and propaganda?
I mean overwhelming majority of your posts have something negative to say about that particular part of the planet, what is your agenda or is it simple hatred?
Are your parents/ancestors russian-jews, is that it?

Yeah, you figured me out. I'm a blatant anti-Russian who posts pro-Russian stuff occasionally.

It's too bad that your one of the few Russians on this site because for many people who’ve never met anyone from Russia in real life you’re the only one they know of.

[NicNZ]

I accept that the article doesnt provide much evidence of chemical weapons use in Afghanistan. I do not, however, understand why everybody is so vehemently opposed to the proposition that such weapons were used. All things considered, I would be surprised if the Soviets didnt use chemical weapons in that conflict. Why wouldnt they use chemical weapons? The article puts it best:

...chemical operations were part and parcel of standard Soviet doctrine for conventional operations.

Lets start discussing the credible reasons (are there any?) why chemical weapons would not have been used.

[Sayeret]

Chemical Warfare

The Soviet Union is believed to have an 80,000 man chemical and biological warfare establishment with specialist chemical defense units attached to divisions, battalions, and companies. Although the Soviets have described the main role of these forces as defensive, there have been many and varied reports of chemical weapon attacks by Soviet troops against guerrilla forces in Afghanistan. The United States Department of State reported that chemical bombs supplied by the Soviet Union were used against guerrillas in November 1978, even before the Soviet invasion. The State Department received reports of 47 different chemical attacks between mid 1979 and mid 1981, resulting in a death toll of more than 3,000. Thirty six of these reports were from Afghan army deserters, guerrillas, journalists, and physicians. Another serious report came from an Afghan army defector who gave the Far Eastern Economic Review details of Soviet supplied chemical and biological agents being used by Afghan army units. Although the veracity of the report was supported by its extensive detail, a number of questions remained.

Other reports by foreign journalists abound, and they suggest that the Soviets have used chemical weapons from helicopter units to drive guerrillas from caves or other dwellings in order to attack them with conventional weapons. In general, the numerous reports of chemical and biological agents being used against Afghan guerrillas, from a wide variety of sources, suggest that Soviet use of such materials may be extensive but remains highly selective. There have been reports by Afghan resistance leaders of decreased use of such agents, and, although a State Department report of February 21, 1984, charged the Soviets with more uses of chemical weapons, it did state that, contrary to previous years, the Soviet use of chemical weapons in 1983 "could not be confirmed as valid."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/afghanistan/cs-invasion.htm

[GazB]

Ummm, yes, the presence of chemical defence troops proves they must have used chemical weapons. I guess the presence of air defence units including SA-9, SA-13, ZSU-23-4, as well as SA-2 and SA-3 batteries must prove the Muj had an airforce?

The presence of chemical and bio defence units on the allied side in desert storm must also prove the US and its allies attacked saddam with chem or bio weapons. I guess "Gulf Syndrome" is further evidence of Allied use of such weapons. (if Saddam had used them we certainly would have heard about it).

[sergey31]

Soviets had better weapons to deal with them (chemical weapons were too much of headache to deal with, not to mention U.N reaction if discovered)

Fuel Air bombs....... Fire salvo of 57mm rockets in to the target area to raise as much dust as possible then drop one or two Fuel-Air bombs and evaporate pretty much everything within several radial miles.

Also they are more humane then Napalm bombs.

[NicNZ]

Soviets had better weapons to deal with them (chemical weapons were too much of headache to deal with, not to mention U.N reaction if discovered)

I would argue to the contrary; what better place on earth to combat-test chemical weapons than the interior of Afghanistan? It about as isolated as you could get. Couple that with the mujahideen opposition -- arguably the most antagonising and beligerent opposition the Soviets had ever encountered -- and you have the most perfect motive for using chemical weapons that you could think of. Furthermore, Soviet concern about UN disapproval surely wouldnt have been that influential.

[rister]

Moscow theater hostage crisis:

If the Russians used chemical agents on their own people why should they not of used it on the mujahideen.
Early Saturday morning, October 26, forces from Russia's elite Spetsnaz commando unit of the Federal Security Service (FSB) pumped a chemical agent into the theater through a hole in the wall before storming the building from the roof and from all entrances. They decided on this tactic because of the large number of terrorists and the explosives they had scattered all over the building, and the likelihood that they would start killing hostages as soon as they realised they were under attack.

During the raid, many of the terrorists were shot in the head at point-blank range after already losing consciousness from the gas. One Russian commando told the media, "I understand that this is cruel, but when there are two kilograms of plastic explosives hanging on a person, we see no other way of rendering them safe."

At least 40 terrorists and 120 hostages (official figures – 33 and 128 respectively) died in the raid or in the following days. The terrorists were shot in the head. Two hostages were shot by terrorists, while the others died through a combination of the fentanyl-based aerosol, lack of food and water, and the lack of adequate medical treatment following the raid.



:bash: :bash: :bash:

[redfox0035]

SU didn't use chemical weapons in Afganistan, simple like that.

But SU discovered a lot of NATO chemical shells, quoting the Abdulaev's memoires:

Через несколько лет, работая преподавателем КУОСа, я тоже задал своим слушателям вопрос:
— Знаете чью Золотую звезду носит Командующий 40-й Армией Громов?
— Неужели Вашу, Эркебек Сагынбекович?
Я скромно потупился. А дело было так. В апреле 1988 года поехал в аушевский 180-й полк клянчить излишки боеприпасов. 40-я Армия уходила в Союз, а нас, советников, ожидали трудные времена. Руслан Султанович лежал в те дни с очередным тяжелым ранением в госпитале. Исполнявший обязанности командира части подполковник встретил меня как родного и с ходу предложил забрать у них все трофеи, поскольку поступила команда все это добро уничтожить.
Целые горы душманских ракет, снарядов и мин мокли под дождем. На некоторых ящиках увидел желтые полосы и символы, означающие химические отравляющие вещества одной из стран НАТО. Когда я обратил внимание офицеров на это, комполка побледнел и вызвал начхима. Свистящим шепотом, не сулящим хорошего, он ткнул пальцем в ящики:
— Что это?
— Химия, товарищ полковник!
— Я сам вижу что химия. Как эти боеприпасы здесь оказались?
— Не могу знать. Трофеи находятся в ведении начальника службы РАВ. В моей службе все в порядке!
О-о! как красиво выражался комполка! Это был шедевр народного непечатного творчества!
Если бы не затяжные дожди, боеприпасы должны были взорвать неделю назад. Облако газов неминуемо накрыло бы весь штаб 40-й армии. Командующий Громов, если бы не траванулся, пошел бы под трибунал. Во всяком случае Золотой звезды ему бы не видать. К сожалению, он не знает, что я его спас. К великой радости подполковника я вывез оттуда четыре большегрузных КРАЗа боеприпасов, а он обещал еще ящик водки сверху за то, что избавил от этой напасти. Так что, мужики, изучайте маркировку иностранных боеприпасов!

and

Я возражаю, что трофеи мне достаются бесплатно, а потому их не жалко. Этого добра у меня навалом. Между прочим, я припрятал трофейные мины к 82 мм миномету, снаряженные химическими отравляющими веществами.

[sergey31]

Moscow theater hostage crisis:

If the Russians used chemical agents on their own people why should they not of used it on the mujahideen.

I can't believe some people on this forum..... Seriously are you that stupid?
The gas that was used was not designed to be lethal (toxic) and surely was not used in that way. It was sleeping gas and non toxic, large overdose can cause fatality making a person choke on it's own vomit.
The reason of the high dosage was used its to ensure immobility of terrorists as soon as possible so there would be NO chance to pull the bomb triggers.
WAS THERE ANY OTHER WAY ?????? WHAT THE FU*K anyone else would have done with those low lives on a suicide mission ??? What a dumbass.

:fork: :bash:

[rister]

Who is the dumbass here............
rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl
It was sleeping gas and non toxic,[/code]

[sergey31]

...

[sergey31]

Who is the dumbass here............
rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl
It was sleeping gas and non toxic,[/code]

Retard, do you know what "Toxic" means?????? :roll:

[Lokos]

sergey, is that a serious question? Of course he doesn't know what 'toxic' means. You credit him with too much intelligence.

Lokos

[rister]

THINK Dumbass!!!!
:cantbeli: :cantbeli: !!!!
rofl rofl rofl rofl

[rister]

Lev Fyodorov, president of Russian's Union for Chemical Safety, told the BBC: "This was a military operation using non-lethal chemical weapons developed during the Cold War.

"They would have been intended for a military opponent."

As such, Mr Fyodorov said the authorities would be unable to prevent deaths of civilians in an enclosed space like the theatre.



I don't know how much more gullible you retards can get..............................???? :cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli:
C H E M I C A L

[sergey31]

You are the one who is retard.... The sleeping gas that was used is NON-LETHAL (Not- Toxic), It's a form of Nitrous Oxide it is used in dentist offices, medical establishments and POLICE field..... It has no military applications.
So, Soviets could have used it in mountains of Afghanistan to put Mujahadeens to sleep????? Dambass please stay on topic of this tread, Would Aircraft drop munitions with sleeping gas ? What would that accomplish?
Man, did you eat too many paint chips as a kid?

Just to add: Why in the hell dentist surgery or any other surgery, They will tell you not to eat anything for 12 hours prior?
It's because so you don't vomit and suffocate. Same thing happen to all the people who died, they choked on their own vomit.

[nahimov]

Lev Fyodorov, president of Russian's Union for Chemical Safety, told the BBC: "This was a military operation using non-lethal chemical weapons developed during the Cold War.

"They would have been intended for a military opponent."

As such, Mr Fyodorov said the authorities would be unable to prevent deaths of civilians in an enclosed space like the theatre.



I don't know how much more gullible you retards can get..............................???? :cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli:
C H E M I C A L

Chemical you say? Well do you know what agent orange is? That is what US used in Vietnam. You could argue that US used chemical weapons on VC and on their own troops as well. How would you argue that?

[M4ko]

We can not call facts about Empire of evil like that ...

Empire of evil? are you retarded or did Jesus bless you with a special mission too?

[M4ko]

Lev Fyodorov, president of Russian's Union for Chemical Safety, told the BBC: "This was a military operation using non-lethal chemical weapons developed during the Cold War.

"They would have been intended for a military opponent."

As such, Mr Fyodorov said the authorities would be unable to prevent deaths of civilians in an enclosed space like the theatre.



I don't know how much more gullible you retards can get..............................???? :cantbeli: :cantbeli: :cantbeli:
C H E M I C A L

You have chemiclas under you bathroom sink. Give me your address so i can tip FBI about your WMD stockpile.

[rister]

O.K whats your problem guys???? ........Sure agent orange is a chemical....I would never say it is not. Why argue when the evidence is there!!!!
You guys are trying to argue an issue, that your beloved country has , would or never use chemical weapons.WAKE UP!!
Chemical weapons lethal non-lethal whats's the ****ing difference when they turn lethal!!!
:roll: :roll: :roll: :cantbeli: :cantbeli:

[nahimov]

O.K whats your problem guys???? ........Sure agent orange is a chemical....I would never say it is not. Why argue when the evidence is there!!!!
You guys are trying to argue an issue, that your beloved country has , would or never use chemical weapons.WAKE UP!!
Chemical weapons lethal non-lethal whats's the f*** difference when they turn lethal!!!
:roll: :roll: :roll: :cantbeli: :cantbeli:

So that means both US and Russia are using chem weapons? So when a doctor uses medication and side effect kills the patient that mean doctor is using chem weapons as well? If you drink some bleach and die does that mean the bleach is a chem weapon?

You sure oversimplify things. Good luck with that.

[rister]

arrrrghhhhhhh..................................... :cantbeli:

[AUDIEM249]

okay in my opinion the russians went in with the intention of saving the lives of hostages and killing the terrorists, and also not knowing the lethality of the gas. everyone nation has its screw ups in hostage crisis. i as an american no of all to many hear. with the issue of chemical weapons whether it be our own testimony or that of an author we will never no,and nobodies opinion will make a difference here. you all seem to have very passionate beliefs and very hard heads and nothing will change either sides stance, as i have said before everyone has their opinion and it is getting everyone no where.
ohh and dima calm down with sayeret he has posted both positive and negative reports on all respectable nations, and any negative feelings towards russians would come from behavior like yours :roll: so how about you put a smile on and represent your nation with maturity p-)

[NicNZ]

:| my favourite topic has slipped so far. So sad, so sad.

Sergei you deserve an award for
Man, did you eat too many paint chips as a kid?

Rister, I think you took far too long to make a clear point. There is some sense to your argument; that chemical weapons were used in Moscow and despite being non-toxic by design they were lethal in use. I do, however, agree with the others; there was no apparent way to resolve the situation in a better way.

[sergey31]

:| my favourite topic has slipped so far. So sad, so sad.

Sergei you deserve an award for
Man, did you eat too many paint chips as a kid?

Rister, I think you took far too long to make a clear point. There is some sense to your argument; that chemical weapons were used in Moscow and despite being non-toxic by design they were lethal in use. I do, however, agree with the others; there was no apparent way to resolve the situation in a better way.

I can't believe people here..... What a bunch if Idiots.
What was original topic discussion?
Did it had to do with Aircraft and them deploying "Chemical" (Toxic- Nerve agents) weapons to "kill" people ?
How in the Fu*k does the original topic connects with what happen in Moscow???
This is for all of you retards. ALL GAS MAKE-UPs are CHEMICAL!
So If Police uses Tear Gas in U.S to raid a suspected drug house then that means U.S Forces used "Chemical" weapons recently in Iraq war? Hey, why wouldn't they, They used it on their own people (civilians).
Or, if a dentist puts you to sleep while he performs surgery...Hey, Americans have "Chemicals" then this must mean they "used" it in the war because they have "chemicals".
Stupid people and dumbass comparison just get to me from time to time...
Hint: Before type something in the public forum, THINK!

lethal non-lethal whats's the f*** difference

With that understanding of "Chemical" weapons you should restrain yourself and not post.

This is how you would sound with you mentality.
Toxic non-Toxic what's the f*** difference

[AUDIEM249]

:| my favourite topic has slipped so far. So sad, so sad.

Sergei you deserve an award for
Man, did you eat too many paint chips as a kid?

Rister, I think you took far too long to make a clear point. There is some sense to your argument; that chemical weapons were used in Moscow and despite being non-toxic by design they were lethal in use. I do, however, agree with the others; there was no apparent way to resolve the situation in a better way.

I can't believe people here..... What a bunch if Idiots.
What was original topic?
Did it had to do with Aircraft and them deploying "Chemical" (Toxic- Nerve agents) weapons to "kill" people ?
How in the Fu*k does the original topic connects with what happen in Moscow???
This is for all of you retards. ALL GAS MAKE-UPs are CHEMICAL!
So If Police uses Tear Gas in U.S to raid a suspected drug house then that means U.S Forces used "Chemical" weapons recently in Iraq war? Hey, why wouldn't they, They used it on their own people (civilians).
Or, if a dentist puts you to sleep while he performs surgery...Hey, Americans have "Chemicals" then this must mean they "used" it in the war because they have "chemicals".
Stupid people and dumbass comparison just get to me from time to time...
Hint: Before type something in the public forum, THINK!

lethal non-lethal whats's the f*** difference

With that understanding of "Chemical" weapons you should restrain yourself and not post.

This is how you would sound with you mentality.
Toxic non-Toxic what's the f*** difference sergey calm down my friend, you have no reason to have to defend yourself. if you believe that russia handled the situation the best it could you should not let one person take you away from that, i myself cant think of any way that russian forces could have done better so therefore i dont criticize russia for the events that happened. keep your respect for russia and dont give time to people who question it, because in the end people who matter will lose there respect for you when such attacks are made :) plus no attack was made to say that the u.s is better therefore no attack is needed towards u.s, we dont need to go back to the russia against u.s thing. cold war is over and now we are common allies and we (that means americans as well ;)) should treat each other with respect :hug:

[sergey31]

I'm not defending Russia or SU, That was not my point at all.
My frustration from the beginning was with STUPID comparison that does not even make sense or go hand to hand.

[GazB]

you all seem to have very passionate beliefs and very hard heads and nothing will change either sides stance, as i have said before everyone has their opinion and it is getting everyone no where.


The discussion seems to have polarised on the question of whether the Soviets broke international law on using chemical weapons in Afghanistan.

BTW rister chem and bio as well as nuclear weapons have specific meanings, which you don't seem to understand. Plastic explosive is widely used by all militaries around the world. Plastic explosive is a chemical compound. That doesn't make it a chemical weapon. Water is a chemical as is air... giving prisoners of war denial of either is actually a war crime.

The evidence given by some here is a video that no one seems to have seen nor has ever been publicly revealed in a climate were most of the west would have given almost anything to get a hold of such a thing. And the fact that the Soviets had NBC troops in afghanistan.

The amusing thing is the ignorance involved. There were US and British and other NBC troops in Desert Storm. Does that mean the allies used such weapons? The Soviets took their military machine to afghanistan. Many cast suspicion over the use of anti tank units and air defence units and indeed NBC troops going to Afghanistan.

The answer is twofold. First the Soviets were not prepared for and did not expect a guerilla war. The forces they took might as well have been straight from the plains of West Germany, ready, trained and equipped for WWIII in Europe. The only difference was that the armour was third echelon stuff. T-55s and T-62s were good enough. the T-72s, T-64s and T-80s stayed defending Europe.
What was the logic of keeping non useful units like anti tank, anti aircraft or NBC troops there? If a grunt unit take casualties and you only have grunt units there and in reserve you need to either operate that unit understrength or break up another reserve grunt unit to get replacements for the missing men. If you take men from the non essential units like air defence or anti tank units or NBC units then it is less of a disturbance to your capabilities. Gun air defence units can be used in a ground role as can the gun anti tank units. The NBC and other non used units can be used for guard duty or to escort the various propaganda exercises... school building, medical assistance to local villages, planting trees etc etc.

[NicNZ]

I still stand by my earlier statement that - in the absence of a clear indication either way - it is more likely than not that chemical weapons were employed by the Soviets in Afghanistan. It would be bewildering if such weapons were not used, given the circumstances of the conflict.

[sergey31]

Until you have some solid proof your standing is just that. United States never publicly accused (with solid proof) Soviets nor did U.N and there were plenty of undercover CIA operatives during that 10 year conflict.
There are large number of people who claim to have seen UFO in government hanger in Nevada somewhere and even more that actually have seen Aliens in real life... .

Maybe you should ask Rister to help you to do a research on this topic (after all this is your favorite topic) Seems he is an expert in Chemicals (who apparently can't tell the difference from toxic nerve agents, Tear gas, Nitrous Oxide, etc).

[rister]

:lol:

[Shadow]

You are the one who is retard.... The sleeping gas that was used is NON-LETHAL (Not- Toxic), It's a form of Nitrous Oxide it is used in dentist offices, medical establishments and POLICE field..... It has no military applications.
So, Soviets could have used it in mountains of Afghanistan to put Mujahadeens to sleep????? Dambass please stay on topic of this tread, Would Aircraft drop munitions with sleeping gas ? What would that accomplish?
Man, did you eat too many paint chips as a kid?

Just to add: Why in the hell dentist surgery or any other surgery, They will tell you not to eat anything for 12 hours prior?
It's because so you don't vomit and suffocate. Same thing happen to all the people who died, they choked on their own vomit.

I doubt that they used N2O to make the mujahadeens fall asleep.
1. You have to inhale it very long
2. It's not yellow
3. It would disappear quickly
4. They would just laugh their asses of

[sergey31]

He was the one comparing it to: Moscow theater hostage crisis.


If the Russians used chemical agents on their own people why should they not of used it on the mujahideen.


Go figure.... Oh, I forgot It's "CHEMICAL" so it must have been used in Afghanistan with devastating affect... Or, If Soviets used Mustard Gas in Afghanistan they could have or probably used it on their own people as well since there is no difference between any of them (lethal non lethal what's the difference?)
I can just imagine them pumping Soman or Mustard gas in-to that theater and hopping it will kill all the terrorists.

And Russians did use a form of Notrious-Oxide in that incident but with a very powerful concentrated dose to ensure that it worked ASAP.

[Shadow]

And Russians did use a form of Notrious-Oxide in that incident but with a very powerful concentrated dose...

There is nothing like concentrated gas under atmospheric pressure.

[GazB]

it is more likely than not that chemical weapons were employed by the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Well the war in afghanistan led to lots of previously secret items making its way tot he west. PSM pistols, Scopes on AK-74s, Silenced makarovs and stechkins. Amazing they didn't even capture a single empty container... Miraculous even...

[Sayeret]

it is more likely than not that chemical weapons were employed by the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Well the war in afghanistan led to lots of previously secret items making its way tot he west. PSM pistols, Scopes on AK-74s, Silenced makarovs and stechkins. Amazing they didn't even capture a single empty container... Miraculous even...

Afghanistan was a long war. There are probably hundreds of stories of things that happened that no one except the participates know about. Not everything is recorded in books or on the internet.

[GazB]

Afghanistan was a long war. There are probably hundreds of stories of things that happened that no one except the participates know about. Not everything is recorded in books or on the internet.

Iran Iraq war was almost as long... Nothing at all happened regarding Saddams use of chem weapons and nobody in the west cared till he invaded Kuwaite.

Perhaps if the Soviets had face the same problems that Saddam faced... human wave attacks they might have considered using chem weapons, but against guerilla forces chem weapons are next to useless. If you just want to kill everyone in a village than a Tu-22 with an FAB-9000 is a much better choice and there is no chance of the delivery aircraft being shot down and compromised.

[Sayeret]

Afghanistan was a long war. There are probably hundreds of stories of things that happened that no one except the participates know about. Not everything is recorded in books or on the internet.

Iran Iraq war was almost as long... Nothing at all happened regarding Saddams use of chem weapons and nobody in the west cared till he invaded Kuwaite.

Perhaps if the Soviets had face the same problems that Saddam faced... human wave attacks they might have considered using chem weapons, but against guerilla forces chem weapons are next to useless. If you just want to kill everyone in a village than a Tu-22 with an FAB-9000 is a much better choice and there is no chance of the delivery aircraft being shot down and compromised.

I'm not going to argue with you about how likely it was for the Soviets to use chemical weapons. If they used any I believe they probably used them at a relatively small scale but there isn’t anyway that either you or I can know for sure.

[Sayeret]

Perhaps if the Soviets had face the same problems that Saddam faced... human wave attacks they might have considered using chem weapons, but against guerilla forces chem weapons are next to useless.

Actually, for clearing people out of caves they can be effective. During Operation Downfall, the planned invasion of Japan, the United States seriously considered using chemical weapons to flush diehard Japanese soldiers out of caves.

Chemical weapons
Because of its predictable wind patterns and several other factors, Japan was particularly vulnerable to gas attack. Such attacks would neutralize the Japanese tendency to fight from caves—caves would only increase the soldiers' exposure to gas.

Although chemical warfare had been outlawed by the Geneva Protocol, neither the United States or Japan were signatories at the time. While the US had promised never to initiate gas warfare, earlier in the war Japan had used gas against the Chinese in Manchuria, (see Unit 731). This gave the US a reason for their use, and, as John Ray Skates notes,

"Fear of Japanese retaliation [to chemical weapon use] lessened because by the end of the war Japan's ability to deliver gas by air or long-range guns had all but disappeared. In 1944 Ultra revealed that the Japanese doubted their ability to retaliate against US use of gas. 'Every precaution must be taken not to give the enemy cause for a pretext to use gas,' the commanders were warned. So fearful were the Japanese leaders that they planned to ignore isolated tactical use of gas in the home islands by the US forces because they feared escalation." (John Ray Skates, The Invasion of Japan, ISBN 0-87249-972-3)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_downfall#Chemical_weapons

Another thing, during World War II, Japan carried out several attacks using biological and chemical weapons in a country which had more communication with the world at the time then Afghanistan when it was invaded. Even to this day there are tons of unknown information about how wide spread these attacks were and how many people were killed. It's hard to disprove that the Soviets might have not tested chemical weapons at some point against an isolated group of Mujahadeen and if the chemical weapons weren't completely successful, how likely is the rest of the world going to take the word of some people living in Afghanistan? So even if they had wounds to prove that they had been exposed to chemical weapons how easily would they be able to show it to the media. Consider there are very few pictures from the Soviet-Afghan war of Soviet soldiers and far less of the Mujahadeen.

[sergey31]

And Russians did use a form of Notrious-Oxide in that incident but with a very powerful concentrated dose...

There is nothing like concentrated gas under atmospheric pressure.

It's higher active properties then in regular gas and it makes it more concentrated (potent). It was not just regular Notrious Oxide but N20 on steroids. Also the gas can be mixed with regular air to make it work slower on purpose. It can also pumped in high volume or at a slower paste.
All gases come from a liquid form and any liquid could me more concentrated then normal.
That is what makes the difference.... If suspects knew they were being drugged they would have done some damage.

[GazB]

Actually, for clearing people out of caves they can be effective. During Operation Downfall, the planned invasion of Japan, the United States seriously considered using chemical weapons to flush diehard Japanese soldiers out of caves.


They also tried pumping CO2 and petrol into VC tunnels but water traps prevent such measures from being effective.

Such methods would also make chemical weapons a waste of time.

Equally explosives tend to be ineffective if used normally as the explosion will for the most part blow out the entrance way rather than deeper into the cave network. The Soviets developed plenty of methods of making explosives effective and these efforts have been made public. Strange that with how many hundred thousand NBC troops no one has come forward to talk about use of chemical weapons???

Another thing, during World War II, Japan carried out several attacks using biological and chemical weapons in a country which had more communication with the world at the time then Afghanistan when it was invaded.

You mean manchuria and china? That was actively hushed up by the western media eager to avoid losing out on the information the Japanese may have learned with the experiementation on prisoners and the like. By the time they worked out the information they got was pretty much useless it was too late. They were also eager for their new puppet state on the front line of the war with the communist block would toe the line. You know the I know what you did... tow the line and we will keep it quiet.

In afghanistan however the western media and the new democratic media in the former communist countries were ooh soo willing to find another way to sink the boot in. Remember it wasn't just Soviets there. Plenty of eastern block countries sent soldiers in to get some real experience. But after all this time not a single shred of hard evidence... as I said... a miracle.

[Sayeret]

Actually, for clearing people out of caves they can be effective. During Operation Downfall, the planned invasion of Japan, the United States seriously considered using chemical weapons to flush diehard Japanese soldiers out of caves.


They also tried pumping CO2 and petrol into VC tunnels but water traps prevent such measures from being effective.

Such methods would also make chemical weapons a waste of time.

Equally explosives tend to be ineffective if used normally as the explosion will for the most part blow out the entrance way rather than deeper into the cave network. The Soviets developed plenty of methods of making explosives effective and these efforts have been made public. Strange that with how many hundred thousand NBC troops no one has come forward to talk about use of chemical weapons???

Like I said earlier if chemical weapons were used they were probably used in a small scale and neither of us can really prove or disprove this. Possibly chemical weapons might've been tested against Mujahadeen in caves. Many new weapons were tested during the war.

The Russians actually considered using chemical weapons to force the Chechens out of the mountains.

Russia used thermobaric weapons sparingly during the 1994-1996 war in Chechnya. These were employed outside the city of Grozny against villages and mountain positions. Only the RPO-A flame thrower, which has a thermobaric round, was used in fighting in Grozny itself. When the fighting rekindled in the fall of 1999, Russian forces bombed some villages in Dagestan with thermobaric bombs, but initially limited their use. When the Russian Army was committed, it slowly advanced across Chechnya's plains, preceded by conventional artillery fire. The advance, however, stalled when it finally reached Grozny and the mountains. Conventional artillery could not force out the Chechens and the Russian Army looked for other ways to move them. Two methods were apparently proposed -chemical weapons and thermobaric weapons. The Russian political leadership apparently vetoed the use of chemical weapons, but allowed the use of ground-delivered thermobaric weapons. Air-delivered thermobaric systems were only used outside the city.

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/fmsopubs/issues/fuelair/fuelair.htm

Another thing, during World War II, Japan carried out several attacks using biological and chemical weapons in a country which had more communication with the world at the time then Afghanistan when it was invaded.

You mean manchuria and china? That was actively hushed up by the western media eager to avoid losing out on the information the Japanese may have learned with the experiementation on prisoners and the like. By the time they worked out the information they got was pretty much useless it was too late. They were also eager for their new puppet state on the front line of the war with the communist block would toe the line. You know the I know what you did... tow the line and we will keep it quiet.

Who's to say the Soviet government didn't just test these chemical weapons with specially trusted NBC soldiers? How difficult would it be for a country to conceal that they used chemical or biological weapons against an isolated group of people in a third world country?

In afghanistan however the western media and the new democratic media in the former communist countries were ooh soo willing to find another way to sink the boot in. Remember it wasn't just Soviets there. Plenty of eastern block countries sent soldiers in to get some real experience. But after all this time not a single shred of hard evidence... as I said... a miracle.

There are some things that are lost in history that the majority of people will never know. I don't know if the Soviets used chemical or biological weapons but I wouldn't rule it our of the realm of possibility. Western spies and sources weren't everywhere.

[sergey31]

Actually the most successful way Soviets cleared caves and underground networks is by Fuel-Air munitions (Bomb's and rockets). I read an article on this; I'll see if I can still find it.

U.S learned from Soviets and deployed similar tactics recently in Afghanistan (although this monition was invented by U.S and Soviets just refined it)

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/005abyvw.asp

http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/02/chech0215b.htm

This is much better and effective then Gas Nerve agents- which is more psychological then affective.
So why in the hell Soviets would use chemical weapons in that war when they had MUCH more affective weapons.

There are some things that are lost in history that the majority of people will never know. I don't know if the Soviets used chemical or biological weapons but I wouldn't rule it our of the realm of possibility. Western spies and sources weren't everywhere.

There is no evidence that Soviets use Nuclear bombs in Afghanistan, Or is there? I guess we will never know huh?
There is no evidence that Soviets deployed infected rats and dogs by parachutes in Afghanistan... But will never know, would we?
There is no evidence that Aliens were helping Soviets... But that is a possibility, no?
You get the point. Since there is no conclusive evidence don't say "MAYBE" otherwise you people sound like conspiracy theory nutcases.

What a great analogy... just because Russians had Chemical weapos then they must of used them... I mean comon. They had them why not used it?

[Sayeret]

There is no evidence that Soviets use Nuclear bombs in Afghanistan, Or is there? I guess we will never know huh?
There is no evidence that Soviets deployed infected rats and dogs by parachutes in Afghanistan... But will never know, would we?
There is no evidence that Aliens were helping Soviets... But that is a possibility, no?
You get the point. Since there is no conclusive evidence don't say "MAYBE" otherwise you people sound like conspiracy theory nutcases.

What a great analogy... just because Russians had Chemical weapos then they must of used them... I mean comon. They had them why not used it?

It's more realistic that the Soviets might've used chemical weapons in Afghanistan then the other things for several reasons:
-The war was very brutal at times and both sides carried out war crimes.
-The United States has made claims that the Soviets used chemical weapons during the war.
-There are reports that the Mujahadeen used a limited number of tear gas grenades.
-As recent as the mid 1990s the Russian government considered using chemical weapons against the Chechens.
-Afghanistan overall didn't have as much communication with the rest of the world as say Czechoslovakia and Hungary. (If the Soviets used chemical weapons in these countries it'd become obvious quickly because where they are located and they are advanced enough to be able to communicated with other countries in Europe much easier.)

[AUDIEM249]

Actually the most successful way Soviets cleared caves and underground networks is by Fuel-Air munitions (Bomb's and rockets). I read an article on this; I'll see if I can still find it.

U.S learned from Soviets and deployed similar tactics recently in Afghanistan (although this monition was invented by U.S and Soviets just refined it)

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/005abyvw.asp

http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/02/chech0215b.htm

This is much better and effective then Gas Nerve agents- which is more psychological then affective.
So why in the hell Soviets would use chemical weapons in that war when they had MUCH more affective weapons.

There are some things that are lost in history that the majority of people will never know. I don't know if the Soviets used chemical or biological weapons but I wouldn't rule it our of the realm of possibility. Western spies and sources weren't everywhere.

There is no evidence that Soviets use Nuclear bombs in Afghanistan, Or is there? I guess we will never know huh?
There is no evidence that Soviets deployed infected rats and dogs by parachutes in Afghanistan... But will never know, would we?
There is no evidence that Aliens were helping Soviets... But that is a possibility, no?
You get the point. Since there is no conclusive evidence don't say "MAYBE" otherwise you people sound like conspiracy theory nutcases.

What a great analogy... just because Russians had Chemical weapos then they must of used them... I mean comon. They had them why not used it? i would have to agree, instead of looking at what is probable you need to look at what evidence exists. plus in my opinion if the u.s found out that soviets were using chemical weapons they would make it public knowledge

[M4ko]

Dima, all respect to you and so forth but that article paints a believable picture of the Soviets using chemical weapons. The article refers to a combination of eyewitness evidence

The eyewitness account of a Dutch journalist, who filmed Mi-24 Hind helicopters in two attacks dropping canisters that released a yellow cloud that killed at least one person, offered additional evidence of chemical use.

and circumstantial evidence

The Soviet use of chemical agents in Afghanistan should not have been a surprise. The Soviets had invested heavily in chemical munitions.19 In fact, Soviet doctrine called for the use of chemical agents in both offensive and defensive roles. In short, chemical operations were part and parcel of standard Soviet doctrine for conventional operations.

Then again, the article doesnt go much further those two quotes that I have mentioned. Perhaps that is all the evidence there is.

Quote from Washington Post

"In today's speech at Sukadykbeech State University of Zimbabwe, president Bush announced that CIA has substantial evidence that NicNZ's and Osama Bin Laden share the same identity."


Washing Post wrote it then it must be true.
Nic are you a communist?

[GazB]

It's more realistic that the Soviets might've used chemical weapons in Afghanistan then the other things for several reasons:

If suspicion is sufficient it is now well known that a certain US general in Korea wanted to use the bomb and also attack China. From this can we infer that in every war since the US has used NBC weapons despite the lack of evidence to support that claim? No of course not. That would be rediculous.

Unfortunately it is considered rediculous because the US is pure and good and right and there is no way they would do anything like that and cover it up. The main reason the Soviets are suspected of using chemical weapons is because they are bad and evil and like doing things like this...

Which of course doesn't make any sense.

If there was any real proof then we would have seen it by now. There isn't so it is down to opinion and that isn't worth sht simply because 9 times out of ten it is coloured by the cold war thinking like this:

...because the US is pure and good and right and there is no way they would do anything like that and cover it up. The main reason the Soviets are suspected of using chemical weapons is because they are bad and evil and like doing things like this...

[Sayeret]

It's more realistic that the Soviets might've used chemical weapons in Afghanistan then the other things for several reasons:

If suspicion is sufficient it is now well known that a certain US general in Korea wanted to use the bomb and also attack China. From this can we infer that in every war since the US has used NBC weapons despite the lack of evidence to support that claim? No of course not. That would be rediculous.

Unfortunately it is considered rediculous because the US is pure and good and right and there is no way they would do anything like that and cover it up. The main reason the Soviets are suspected of using chemical weapons is because they are bad and evil and like doing things like this...

Which of course doesn't make any sense.

If there was any real proof then we would have seen it by now. There isn't so it is down to opinion and that isn't worth sht simply because 9 times out of ten it is coloured by the cold war thinking like this:

...because the US is pure and good and right and there is no way they would do anything like that and cover it up. The main reason the Soviets are suspected of using chemical weapons is because they are bad and evil and like doing things like this...

Just believe whatever you want, I don't really care. What you believe doesn't change what happened or could've happened.

[M4ko]

It's more realistic that the Soviets might've used chemical weapons in Afghanistan then the other things for several reasons:

If suspicion is sufficient it is now well known that a certain US general in Korea wanted to use the bomb and also attack China. From this can we infer that in every war since the US has used NBC weapons despite the lack of evidence to support that claim? No of course not. That would be rediculous.

Unfortunately it is considered rediculous because the US is pure and good and right and there is no way they would do anything like that and cover it up. The main reason the Soviets are suspected of using chemical weapons is because they are bad and evil and like doing things like this...

Which of course doesn't make any sense.

If there was any real proof then we would have seen it by now. There isn't so it is down to opinion and that isn't worth sht simply because 9 times out of ten it is coloured by the cold war thinking like this:

...because the US is pure and good and right and there is no way they would do anything like that and cover it up. The main reason the Soviets are suspected of using chemical weapons is because they are bad and evil and like doing things like this...

Just believe whatever you want, I don't really care. What you believe doesn't change what happened or could've happened.

So what did happen?

[Sayeret]

It's more realistic that the Soviets might've used chemical weapons in Afghanistan then the other things for several reasons:

If suspicion is sufficient it is now well known that a certain US general in Korea wanted to use the bomb and also attack China. From this can we infer that in every war since the US has used NBC weapons despite the lack of evidence to support that claim? No of course not. That would be rediculous.

Unfortunately it is considered rediculous because the US is pure and good and right and there is no way they would do anything like that and cover it up. The main reason the Soviets are suspected of using chemical weapons is because they are bad and evil and like doing things like this...

Which of course doesn't make any sense.

If there was any real proof then we would have seen it by now. There isn't so it is down to opinion and that isn't worth sht simply because 9 times out of ten it is coloured by the cold war thinking like this:

...because the US is pure and good and right and there is no way they would do anything like that and cover it up. The main reason the Soviets are suspected of using chemical weapons is because they are bad and evil and like doing things like this...

Just believe whatever you want, I don't really care. What you believe doesn't change what happened or could've happened.

So what did happen?

That's the whole point, no one.

[mwe]

The discussion seems to have polarised on the question of whether the Soviets broke international law on using chemical weapons in Afghanistan.

Does anyone really care about international law? I mean really?

Laos was gassing Hmong at around the same time and actually employed gas on Thai soldiers. Iraq was gassing people. Burma was hitting civilians with crop dusters.

Not saying Russia did or didn't but using international law as something to prove it is quite meaningless.

but against guerilla forces chem weapons are next to useless.

Also a bad statement. Laos did gas Hmong civilians. Burma did civilians with crop dusters. Britain gassing Kurds. Iraq gassed Kurds.

Goes to show gas can work quite fine on rebels and guerillas.

Doesn't prove or disprove anything p-)

[Son_Of_Suvorov]

I still stand by my earlier statement that - in the absence of a clear indication either way - it is more likely than not that chemical weapons were employed by the Soviets in Afghanistan. It would be bewildering if such weapons were not used, given the circumstances of the conflict.

My father was a sapper in Afghanistan, and did a lot of work clearing caves and tunnels. He was telling me about how they did it - apparently the most effective method was to burn them out with grenades and diesel fuel. Then I asked the obvious (or what seemed obvious to me, anyway) - why not just gas them? You know what he said? "That wouldn't be humane." rofl

As to chemical weapons themselves, unless you're going to slip a pill into their drink, gas is the only way to deliver them (the Hollywood bull**** about something that you just rub on your skin and die is just that - skin is there to protect you from crap, so unless you vigorously rub your eyes after touching the poison powder there may not be any effect). WWI has proven that gas is one of the least efficient weapons ever invented - it all depends on the wind, and chances are good that half of the time the wind will blow in your direction. This is why Germans did not use gas on the battlefield in WWII (or at least from what I have read - if anybody knows of an example contradicting this, please share!). It's also pretty easy to tell when someone has been gassed to death, and it's not like the Afghans didn't have cameras. Finally, in Afghanistan the clear terrain, wind patterns caused by the mountains, and the dispersal of the enemy would make gas use a pretty big waste. The only place where it could be used effectively was caves - and as I pointed out above there are much better and cheaper methods of dealing with those (but of course the burning diesel fuel consumes oxygen and releases CO2, so you end up gassing them anyway).

[GazB]

Iraq gassed Kurds.

Goes to show gas can work quite fine on rebels and guerillas.

Doesn't prove or disprove anything

Iraq was intent on genocide. They wanted to kill all Kurds. For that purpose poinsonous gasses are useful. They are also useful for massed human attacks. Neither of those conditions were met in Afghanistan.

If we are talking about what some armed force might or might not have done based purely on suspicion then there will be no conclusion.

If I were to say I suspect Sarayet to be gay how can he prove he is not. Marriage to a woman is not proof, all his mates personal assurances that he isn't is not enough either. I suggest that there is no way he could truely prove he is not gay. However I will not accuse him of being gay for two reasons. First is I don't care whether he is or not. His sexuality is none of my business. And second I have not seen or heard any evidence to make me consider it a likely conclusion.

I would suggest that until you can prove otherwise, that such opinions should be kept to yourself.

[USMC-Congbuster]

Coercion and deceit?

Congratulations M4ko, you are a homo

[mwe]

I don't think it was a genocide attempt but more an attempt to break their back. Other nations have also gassed unruly locals.

I never said the USSR did gas the Mujahideen (I lean towards that they didn't gas them) but that the way you went about saying they didn't was flawed.