Gasing the Kurds - Who Did It?

[achilles]

The article is a bit old but i found it very interesting.


A War Crime or an Act of War?
by Stephen C. Pelletiere

MECHANICSBURG, Pa. — It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."
The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.
But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.


I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.


This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.


And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.


The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.


These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.


I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.


In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has bearing on today might want to consider a different question: Why was Iran so keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on America's impetus to invade Iraq.


We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and Euphrates, there are the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the north of the country. Iraq was covered with irrigation works by the sixth century A.D., and was a granary for the region.


Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming to take control of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990's there was much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress has been made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could change.
Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that probably could not be challenged for decades — not solely by controlling Iraq's oil, but by controlling its water. Even if America didn't occupy the country, once Mr. Hussein's Baath Party is driven from power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American companies.
All that is needed to get us into war is one clear reason for acting, one that would be generally persuasive. But efforts to link the Iraqis directly to Osama bin Laden have proved inconclusive. Assertions that Iraq threatens its neighbors have also failed to create much resolve; in its present debilitated condition — thanks to United Nations sanctions — Iraq's conventional forces threaten no one.


Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his people. And the most dramatic case are the accusations about Halabja.


Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports?


Stephen C. Pelletiere is author of "Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Persian Gulf."
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company link (http://www.webinquirer.plus.com/gasing-kurds.html)

[BigBaribal]

Interesting article.

Btw, as an historical precision, the first use of chemical weapons against civilians was done by the Royal Air Force above Iraqi villages around 1927.

[gm79]

I've found an interesting timeline of the Iraq's chermical weapons:

November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians. [1]

December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. [1] & [15]

July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [19]

January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of "dual-use" export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application. [2]

March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. [10]

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [3]

May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7]

March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. [17]

Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq. [1]

February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages. [8]

April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. [7]

August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925. [6] & [13]

August, 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire. [8]

August, 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds. [8]

September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. [7]

September, 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: "The US-Iraqi relationship is... important to our long-term political and economic objectives." [15]

December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. [1]

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php

[BadKarma26]

Tell that to the 5,000+ people who died in Halabja. Tell that to the people countless numbers of birth defects and tumors that will mutate thier DNA for generations.

I'm not going to post very graphic images (which i could) people with arms growing out of their heads etc, but you get the idea.

http://ville.blogfodder.net/14.jpg

[SHAM]

Tell that to the 5,000+ people who died in Halabja. Tell that to the people countless numbers of birth defects and tumors that will mutate thier DNA for generations.

I'm not going to post very graphic images (which i could) people with arms growing out of their heads etc, but you get the idea.

http://ville.blogfodder.net/14.jpg

On a slightly seperate note, the journalist whos footage you posted and broke the gassing story was killed at the beginning of gulf war 2. Terry loyd from ITN. Was'nt an embedded journalist and was reportedly shot by either americans or iraqis as they were both in the area at the same time, some kinda mix up. Dont know if there has been an official report.

And as for who did the gassing, they didnt call him "Chemical Alli" for nothing. They will all get whats comming to them.

[-=P=-]

That guy should prove that Iran used gas even during the whole war.

Iranians and Kurds were there and saw that it were Iraqi aircrafts.

Man I have spoken with an Iraqi soldier who was there and he said that they used gas because without they had no chance there...

He says he have read that things in secret CIA reports... come on...

[BigBaribal]

On this subject, I just remember that a Swiss colonel, specialist in chemical warfare, was sent there for UNO inspection and later said to his greatest shame that the gas was spread from Swiss-built Pilatus aircrafts!

[S'13]

Interesting article.

Btw, as an historical precision, the first use of chemical weapons against civilians was done by the Royal Air Force above Iraqi villages around 1927.

Didn't the Spanish use chemichal weapons during the Rif Revolt in Morocco (1919-1926)?

[GazB]

That guy should prove that Iran used gas even during the whole war.


Don't be silly... this is step one... demonise the enemy. After it is all over we will find out that perhaps they didn't have WMD afterall... but heck we saved a lot of Iranians from those evil mullas... despite all the suicide attacks they want us here...

[Kilgor]

Interesting article.

Btw, as an historical precision, the first use of chemical weapons against civilians was done by the Royal Air Force above Iraqi villages around 1927.

care to back that up ?

[Jedburgh]

Iranian Revolutionary Guard troops crossed the Iraqi border with the assistance of Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga and had temporary control of the town of Halabja, but most of the Iranians withdrew after a short period of time. Saddam hit the town with CW bombs from aircraft in revenge. I've actually seen a video of the airstrike (have a copy of it at home) - one of the Peshmerga on the outskirts of town had a camera filming the aircraft as they flew over.

There is also extensive photographic and video evidence of the results of the strike that were taken by a number of reporters brought in by the Kurds. At the time, our government denied that chemical weapons were used by Iraq and tried to downplay the incident as much as possible - we were, of course, supporting Iraq against Iran in those days.

(BTW, in a unique bit of historical coincidence, the attack on Halabja took place on the 20th anniversary of the My Lai massacre)

But Halabja, althought it was the most terrible incident in terms of numbers killed, was certainly not the only instance of chemical weapons being used against the Kurds. From '87 to '88 chemical weapons were used in at least 60 instances against the Kurds - almost all during the Anfal operation. The atrocities committed during the Anfal campaign - including the CW strikes - are well documented and have been extensively investigated.

This makes for interesting reading: Genocide in Iraq: The Anfal Campaign Against the Kurds (http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/ANFAL.htm)

These links are to an article and Senate testimony by Dr. Christine Gosden, a British geneticist who visited Halabja in 1998. More than the attack itself, the discussion of the long-term effects of CW on the attack's survivors caught my attention:

Why I Went, What I Saw (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27a/016.html)

Testimony of Dr. Gosden Before the Senate Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government (http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary/oldsite/gosden.htm)

Gosden Video Link (http://video.c-span.org:8080/ramgen/idrive/iraq_wj032703_gosden)

CBC News: The Fifth Estate - The Forgotten People (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/kurds/index.html)

[Jedburgh]

Btw, as an historical precision, the first use of chemical weapons against civilians was done by the Royal Air Force above Iraqi villages around 1927.
Close, but no cigar. The RAF dropped Mustard Gas on Afghans in 1919, and on recalcitrant tribes during the Iraqi revolt of 1920-21. The British government still refuses to declassify official documents regarding their use over 80 years ago, but their is a bit of non-official participant and eye-witness documentation.

The earliest fully and reliably documented use of aerial-delivered CW is of the Italians in Ethiopia in 1936. But lesser-known early instances of chemical weapons used to subdue insurgents include Italy in Libya in 1923-24 and 1927-28, and Spain's use of CW in Morocco during the war of 1921-27.

[ForgottenSoldier1942]

While we're on the subject:

During the Yemen War of 1963 through 1967, Egypt evidently used mustard bombs in support of South Yemen against royalist troops in North Yemen. Nasser's adventure in Yemen in 1963 on the side of a military coup began when the Egyptian army fought the Saudi Arabian backed royalist Yemeni tribes was the first time the Egyptian Army fights against Arabs since Ibrahim Pasha campaign against the Wahhabbie rebels in Arabia in the 1820's. The use of chemical weapons against the Yemeni tribesmen was the first use of chemical weapons in the Middle East. During the Yemeni civil war phosgene and mustard aerial bombs killed at least 1,400 people. Some reports claim that Egypt also used an organophosphate nerve agent against Yemeni Royalist forces. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/egypt/cw/

[Steel21]

So who was it? Iranians or Iraqis?

[armourer]

"Although crude chemical warfare has been employed in many part of the world for thousands of years, "modern" chemical warfare began during World War I. "

The Iraqis gassed the Kurds.

[gm79]

The Iraqis gassed the Kurds.

With a "MADE IN USA" in the shells.

[Kilgor]

The Iraqis gassed the Kurds.

With a "MADE IN USA" in the shells.

prove it :D

however there are clear links to french and german firms in the sale of chemical weapon production equipment.

* One French company, Protec, furnished Iraq with millions of dollars of equipment to six separate plants for making mustard gas and nerve agents, with a capacity of hundreds of tons of nerve agent per year."

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/newsletter/2003/0603g.shtml

[Jedburgh]

With a "MADE IN USA" in the shells.
Not quite.
Fact Sheet: Chemical Warfare in the Iran-Iraq War (http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html)

ORIGIN OF THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS

The UN report provides only negative evidence of the origin of the mustard gas sample. The absence in the sample analysed in Sweden and Switzerland of polysulphides and of more than a trace of sulphur indicates that it is not of past US-government manufacture, for all US mustard was made by the Levinstein process from ethylene and mixed sulphur chlorides. That process is also said to have been the one used by the USSR. From similar reasoning, British-made mustard, too, can probably be ruled out, even though substantial stocks were once held at British depots in the Middle East. For more positive evidence other sources of information must be used. Over the years since the mid-1960s quite a lot of information has been published purporting to describe Iraqi chemical weapons, but much of it is contradictory and all of it is of a reliability which SIPRI is in no position to judge. A major caveat must be entered: chemical warfare is such an emotive subject that it lends itself very readily to campaigns of disinformation and black propaganda, campaigns which the politics both of the Gulf War and of the current chemical-weapons negotiations have unquestionably stimulated to no small degree.

We may look first at the nature of the chemical-weapons technology which Iraq has been reported to have acquired.

In addition to bulk-filled free-fall aircraft bombs, at least two other categories of chemical munition have reportedly been employed: artillery shell and air-to-ground rockets. Iranians sent for hospital treatment in London who were suffering from what must almost certainly have been mustard-gas burns have attributed their injuries to all three categories of munition. There is no evidence that mustard-filled air-to-ground rockets have ever been stockpiled by Western countries. The rockets whose use was described by one of the Iranians apparently had submunition warheads, a relatively sophisticated design.
The US did not give Iraq WMD in the sense of weaponized agents - either chem or bio. However, we made no effort to monitor exports or tighten up controls on critical elements that were leaving the US. We were too blinded by the thought of revenge and focused on supporting Iraq in a war of aggression they initiated against Iran. However, the calculated strategy was to give just enough support to enable Iraq to cripple Iran - but at the same time we did not want Iraq to acheive a decisive victory.

As far as media reporting goes, at the time we played down actual usage of chemical weapons during the war with Iran. Contemporary reporting barely mentions the incidents. Do a search on articles relating to Iraqi chemical attacks on the Kurds in '88 and you will find government spokesmen denying it happened. Reprehensible - simply to get even with the Iranian Revolutionaries.

BTW, we certainly did provide the Iraqis with current intel - mostly satellite imagery - of Iranian military dispositions. Not specifically for CW targeting, but simply to assist the Iraqis in military operations. This came back to haunt us later - the knowledge of our satellite imaging capabilities gave the Iraqis invaluable assistance in hiding their weapons programs from overhead view during the UNSCOM period, and in eventually removing and elminating it unobserved.

[armourer]

The Iraqis gassed the Kurds.

With a "MADE IN USA" in the shells.

and your point is ?

[JTAR7242]

Simpsons did it.

[BarkingSquirrel]

The Iraqis gassed the Kurds.

With a "MADE IN USA" in the shells.In that case when someone asks how we can know that he had WMD's, we can reply with "We have the recipt". Unfortunetly for your crowd, that would prove the justifications for the war ;)

[armourer]

The Iraqis gassed the Kurds.

With a "MADE IN USA" in the shells.In that case when someone asks how we can know that he had WMD's, we can reply with "We have the recipt". Unfortunetly for your crowd, that would prove the justifications for the war ;)

OK by me. :D

[BlackRain]

With a "MADE IN USA" in the shells.

That's it!

Two less acres of rainforest for you now.

[Sayeret]

It's always a little weird when people are so against a war they support brutal dictators such as Saddam Hussein. I remember going to an event in which people were talking about the war and a guy nearby me tried to defend Saddam Hussein wasn't that bad of a guy since he hadn't killed thousands of civilians for a few years.

[Sayeret]

Btw, as an historical precision, the first use of chemical weapons against civilians was done by the Royal Air Force above Iraqi villages around 1927.
Close, but no cigar. The RAF dropped Mustard Gas on Afghans in 1919, and on recalcitrant tribes during the Iraqi revolt of 1920-21. The British government still refuses to declassify official documents regarding their use over 80 years ago, but their is a bit of non-official participant and eye-witness documentation.

The earliest fully and reliably documented use of aerial-delivered CW is of the Italians in Ethiopia in 1936. But lesser-known early instances of chemical weapons used to subdue insurgents include Italy in Libya in 1923-24 and 1927-28, and Spain's use of CW in Morocco during the war of 1921-27.

For anyone who's interested:

Chemical and biological weapons use through history (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=28189&highlight=chemical+weapons)

[Sayeret]

That guy should prove that Iran used gas even during the whole war.


Don't be silly... this is step one... demonise the enemy. After it is all over we will find out that perhaps they didn't have WMD afterall... but heck we saved a lot of Iranians from those evil mullas... despite all the suicide attacks they want us here...

I'm starting to think you don't think too highly of the US or the West for that matter ;)

[gm79]

The Riegle Report

U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Gulf War
A Report of Chairman Donald W. Riegle, Jr. and Ranking Member Alfonse M. D'Amato of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with Respect to Export Administration

United States Senate, 103d Congress, 2d Session
May 25, 1994

(...)
Chapter 1, Part 2
(...)
U.S. Exports of Biological Materials to Iraq

The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs has oversight responsibility for the Export Administration Act. Pursuant to the Act, Committee staff contacted the U.S. Department of Commerce and requested information on the export of biological materials during the years prior to the Gulf War. After receiving this information, we contacted a principal supplier of these materials to determine what, if any, materials were exported to Iraq which might have contributed to an offensive or defensive biological warfare program. Records available from the supplier for the period from 1985 until the present show that during this time, pathogenic (meaning "disease producing"), toxigenic (meaning "poisonous"), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Records prior to 1985 were not available, according to the supplier. These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction. According to the Department of Defense's own Report to Congress on the Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, released in April 1992:

"By the time of the invasion of Kuwait, Iraq had developed biological weapons. It's advanced and aggressive biological warfare program was the most advanced in the Arab world... The program probably began late in the 1970's and concentrated on the development of two agents, botulinum toxin and anthrax bacteria... Large scale production of these agents began in 1989 at four facilities near Baghdad. Delivery means for biological agents ranged >from simple aerial bombs and artillery rockets to surface-to-surface missiles." (53)

Included in the approved sales are the following biological materials (which have been considered by various nations for use in war), with their associated disease symptoms:(54)

Bacillus Anthracis: anthrax is a disease-producing bacteria...
(...bla bla bla)

In addition, several shipments of Escherichia Coli (E.Coli) and genetic materials, as well as human and bacterial DNA, were shipped directly to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission.

The following is a detailed listing of biological materials, provided by the American Type Culture Collection, which were exported to agencies of the government of Iraq pursuant to the issuance of an export licensed by the U.S. Commerce Department:(55)

Date : February 8, 1985
Sent to : Iraq Atomic Energy Agency
Materials Shipped:
Ustilago nuda (Jensen) Rostrup

Date : February 22, 1985
Sent to : Ministry of Higher Education
Materials Shipped:
Histoplasma capsulatum var. farciminosum (ATCC 32136)

Class III pathogen

Date : July 11, 1985
Sent to : Middle and Near East Regional A
Materials Shipped:
Histoplasma capsulatum var. farciminosum (ATCC 32136)

Class III pathogen

Date : May 2, 1986
Sent to : Ministry of Higher Education
Materials Shipped:
1. Bacillus Anthracis Cohn (ATCC 10)
Batch # 08-20-82 (2 each)

Class III pathogen.

2. Bacillus Subtilis (Ehrenberg) Cohn (ATCC 82)
Batch # 06-20-84 (2 each)

3. Clostridium botulinum Type A (ATCC 3502)
Batch# 07-07-81 (3 each)

Class III Pathogen

4. Clostridium perfringens (Weillon and Zuber) Hauduroy, et al (ATCC 3624)
Batch# 10-85SV (2 each)

5. Bacillus subtilis (ATCC 6051)
Batch# 12-06-84 (2 each)

6. Francisella tularensis var. tularensis Olsufiev (ATCC 6223)
Batch# 05-14-79 (2 each)

Avirulent, suitable for preparations of diagnostic antigens.

7. Clostridium tetani (ATCC 9441)
Batch# 03-84 (3 each)
Highly toxigenic.

8. Clostridium botulinum Type E (ATCC 9564)
Batch# 03-02-79 (2 each)

Class III pathogen
(...)

The list is Big!
You can check the entire list here http://www.gulfwarvets.com/arison/banking.htm#Chapter 2
Or google for The Riegle Report.

[gm79]

It's always a little weird when people are so against a war they support brutal dictators such as Saddam Hussein.

I agree with you. I hate those people who support brutal dictators:
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg

[BarkingSquirrel]

It's always a little weird when people are so against a war they support brutal dictators such as Saddam Hussein.

I agree with you. I hate those people who support brutal dictators:
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpgEver heard of Getúlio Dornelles Vargas? Or maybe General Costa e Silva? Perhaps General Humberto de Alencar Castello Branco then?

[gm79]

Ever heard of Getúlio Dornelles Vargas?

Yes, and also about Castelo Branco, Costa e Silva, Médici(The worst), Geisel and Figueiredo.

BTW, lets keep it in "Gasing the Kurds - Who Did It?"

[BarkingSquirrel]

Then shut up about dictators. Your country has had its share of its own dictators, much less its share of previous support for them.

[budgie]

So who was it? Iranians or Iraqis?

Whoever Bush and Rummy want it to be next. This is so effing transparent. Everyone knows it was Saddam and has been reported in a variety of sources that he got the technology from the US and Europe.

Now the corporate media is trying top sow the idea that it was the Iranians until enough chest thumping Nascar dads believe it to start a war against Iran. They're just gonna keep shifting the blame and we're supposed top keep lapping it up?

There'sll be hints and innuendo and phoney documents from Nigeria. There'll be Lambaugh and Hannity with lines like "Well we don't know it wasn't the Iranians" and other cheap shots. How many of you are going to buy it a second time?

Phooey.

[BarkingSquirrel]

Why would the media all of a sudden start trying to help Bush, after spending 4 years trying to destroy him? Puhleeze. Common sense goes a long way these days.

[Kilgor]

I agree with you. I hate those people who support brutal dictators:


http://www.mtv3.fi/uutiset/kuvat/lahiita/naamat/saddam-annan.jpg

rofl

[gm79]

Then shut up about dictators. Your country has had its share of its own dictators, much less its share of previous support for them.

If you want to talk about Brazilian dictators, start another topic.
They were bad, but definitely they didn't gassed the kurds.

[gm79]

I agree with you. I hate those people who support brutal dictators:


http://www.mtv3.fi/uutiset/kuvat/lahiita/naamat/saddam-annan.jpg

rofl


Wow! Did kofi Annan sold chermical or biological agents to Iraq too?

[BarkingSquirrel]

No I will not start another topic, nor will I let you change this one. You attacked the US for previous support of a brutal dictator, then all of a sudden want to shy away from that topic once you're reminded of the dictators that ruled your own country, much less the ones supported by it.

Don't start ****, there won't be no ****.

[Kilgor]

I agree with you. I hate those people who support brutal dictators:


http://www.mtv3.fi/uutiset/kuvat/lahiita/naamat/saddam-annan.jpg

rofl


Wow! Did kofi Annan sold chermical or biological agents to Iraq too?

does it matter, like you said.. you hate people that support dictators.

[Kilgor]

There is a huge list of countries that sold arms to saddam, do you have the french and germans too ?

[BarkingSquirrel]

There is a huge list of countries that sold arms to saddam, do you have the french and germans too ?http://www.solport.com/resources/Iraqi%20Weapons.JPG
Brazil sent alot more than Germany ;) Bet Saddam loved those EE9's eh?

[gm79]

There is a huge list of countries that sold arms to saddam, do you have the french and germans too ?


Brazil sold weapons to Iraq too. But only AA missles.
I think an AA missle isn't a WMD.

[budgie]

Why would the media all of a sudden start trying to help Bush, after spending 4 years trying to destroy him? Puhleeze. Common sense goes a long way these days.

Which media is this? Fox News and CNN? MSNBC or the hundreds of other TV and radio stations, papers and magazines run by Rupert Murdoch and the Sinclair group who are massive Bush supporters?

These flag-wavers consistently tell you that the 'liberal media' or these days just 'the media' can't be trusted therefore suggesting you can only trust them. They're first to trumpet Bush's line and last to come clean when the BS (like WMD) finally gets disproved. Where is this 'liberal media' andyway? Even Dan Rather was a flag waving hawk on Iraq. Peter Jennings?

Puhleeeze yourself mate. The US media has been very kind to Bush. And just wait and see how they trumpet any and every charge that comes up against Iran over the coming months without question. You heard it here first.

[Kilgor]

There is a huge list of countries that sold arms to saddam, do you have the french and germans too ?


Brazil sold weapons to Iraq too. But only AA missles.
I think an AA missle isn't a WMD.

stop backpeddling...

Thats still supporting right ?

Like I said, the French and Germans sold WMD production equipment to Saddam, do you hate them too ?

[gm79]

There is a huge list of countries that sold arms to saddam, do you have the french and germans too ?


Brazil sold weapons to Iraq too. But only AA missles.
I think an AA missle isn't a WMD.

stop backpeddling...

Thats still supporting right ?

Like I said, the French and Germans sold WMD production equipment to Saddam, do you hate them too ?


Oh i see you finally accepted that US sold WMD production equipment to Saddam. You put a "too" in the end of your phrase. ;)

[Kilgor]

no, "too" referes to the hating part.

anyway.. dont change the subject

[BarkingSquirrel]

Like I said, I'll accept the fact that we sold him **** in the 80's, as that would mean that we had a reciept, and that the war was then completely justified, which then still f**ks you in the ass.

[gm79]

The Iraqis gassed the Kurds.

With a "MADE IN USA" in the shells.

Quoting myself.
Now, you both agree with me?

[BarkingSquirrel]

The Iraqis gassed the Kurds.

With a "MADE IN USA" in the shells.

Quoting myself.
Now, you both agree with me?
Yep

Like I said, I'll accept the fact that we sold him **** in the 80's, as that would mean that we had a reciept, and that the war was then completely justified, which then still f**ks you in the ass.
And I wonder how well Saddam liked those EE9's, AA Missiles, and various other units Brazil sent him. Care to guess what he used them for? Though so ;) I love how this went:

You sold him the gas!
Yep, proves he had it.
I hate people who support dictators!
Your country not only supported dictators, it was run by them too.
Don't change the subject!
I didnt, I merely showed you to be the hypocrite that you are.
My dictators didnt give him WMD!
Support is support, you made no distinction in your attack.
Are you agreeing with me?

[budgie]

Is this just a personal pissing contest between you two? Because you guys are way off topic. Try not to get bogged down in semantics, trip each other up on your words and keep your eyes on the big picture. The west in general supported Saddam in the 80's. They turned a blind eye on Saddam gassing his own people. And sorry Squirrel, but Saddam did not have any WMD left after he was forced to dismantle them in the 90's so you won't be buggering anyone soon. There was never any dispute that he used to have them.

Back to the OP what is the BS in the original post that hints at blaming Iran for Halabja?

[BarkingSquirrel]

Like I told the little thing earlier. Don't sart no ****, there won't be no ****. I refuse to allow a grossly hypocritical attack go unrefuted.

[Operation Ivy]

Then shut up about dictators. Your country has had its share of its own dictators, much less its share of previous support for them.

If you want to talk about Brazilian dictators, start another topic.
They were bad, but definitely they didn't gassed the kurds.

i seem to remember you guys supporting and hiding a bunch of Nazi Leaders now surly they were nice guys :roll:

[budgie]

http://www.iranaffairs.com/blog/archives/000002.html

July 11, 2004

Who bombed Halabja?

Since the US government falsely claimed that Iran was responsible for the gassing of Kurdish village of Halabja, Saddam can now use that claim to protest his own innocence at his trial. The ironies are legion.

On a PBS Newshour interview of the July 9, 2004, former CIA official Larry Johnson asserted that "both Iran and Iraq were using chemical weapons" during the Iran-Iraq war, and that that there is "some debate" in the intelligence community about who bombed Halabja: Iran or Iraq. Former CIA-analyst Stephen C. Pelletiere had revived the charge that Iran was responsible for gassing Halabja in an op-ed in the New York Times, Jan. 31, 2003, a charge that has been effectively refuted but is still kept alive by thoughtless repetition. And the greater irony is that now Saddam may be able to use this lie in his defense.

So lets put this fact straight once and for all: The suggestion that Iran gassed the Kurds at Halabja was a lie concoted by the US Pentagon, and was intended to shift the blame for the Halabja massacre off of Saddam Hussein (who was allied with the US at the time) and onto Iran. In fact Iran did not use chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war, though pursuant to the Chemical Weapons Convention it would have been justified to respond in kind to Iraq's chemical weapons.

Joost Hiltermann of Human Rights Watch (among others) has researched the issue, and concluded:



“Analysis of thousands of captured Iraqi secret police documents and declassified United States government documents, as well as interviews with scores of Kurdish survivors, senior Iraqi defectors and retired United States intelligence officers, show… that the United States, fully aware it was Iraq, accused Iran…of being partly responsible for the [Halabja poison gas] attack. The State Department instructed its diplomats to say that Iran was partly to blame. The result… was that the international community failed to muster the will to condemn Iraq strongly...Unfortunately for Iraq's sponsors, Iran rushed Western reporters to the blighted town….In response, the United States launched the "Iran too" gambit. The story was cooked up in the Pentagon, interviews with the principals show. A newly declassified State Department document demonstrates that United States diplomats received instructions to press this line with United States allies…. Some of those who engineered the tilt today are back in power in the Bush administration. They have yet to account for their judgment that it was Iran, not Iraq, that posed the primary threat to the Gulf; for building up Iraq so that it thought it could invade Kuwait and get away with it; for encouraging Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs by giving the regime a de facto green light on chemical weapons use; and for turning a blind eye to Iraq's worst atrocities, and then lying about it.” - (International Herald Tribune article of January 17, 2003 entitled "Who minded Iraqi mustard gas in 1983?")


The US was of course always aware of the nature of Saddam's regime and only belatedly condemned Saddam's use of chemical weapons, but that hadn't prevented the US from removing Saddam's Iraq from the list of terrorist countries in 1982 and shipping over items intended for military use. Rumsfeld was even sent to Iraq to assure Saddam that the official US condemnation of Iraq's use of chemical weapons was merely meant for public consumption.

This would all be quite embarassing if it came out during his trial, wouldn't it? After all, now that no WMD have turned up in Iraq, Saddam's atrocities are the only way of vindicating the US invasion of Iraq, and pointing out US complicity in his atrocities would detract from GW Bush's insufferable moral righteousness. While he's at it, Saddam might as well also mention that the CIA was intimately involved in his rise to power in the first place. As UPI's Richard Sale reported on 4/10/2003, Saddam "was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim."

Of course, there is every indication that the trial of Saddam is being carefully controlled to avoid any embarassing disclosures about the role of the US (and Rumsfeld in particular) in supporting Saddam, which is why the invasion of Iran was not among the list of charges brought against him. And I bet many restrictions will be placed on what Saddam gets to say in open court. The restrictions will no doubt be characterized as necessary to prevent Saddam from "misusing" the trial as a podium - but in fact the real concern is to protect Rumsfeld and the US from embarassing disclosures.

For more information about the US "tilt" towards Saddam during the 80's, I suggest visiting the National Security Archives website, for starters. One of these days I will get around to making a thorough list of links and information on the US support for Saddam, aka Iraqgate.

[BarkingSquirrel]

Since the US government falsely claimed that Iran was responsible for the gassing of Kurdish village of Halabja, Saddam can now use that claim to protest his own innocence at his trial.
former CIA official Larry Johnson asserted that "both Iran and Iraq were using chemical weapons" during the Iran-Iraq war
???

[budgie]

???

Although it's not the government's official line (yet) the writer demonstrates quite clearly the motives behind the rumour.

[BarkingSquirrel]

No, I just read the article until it contradicted itself for the first time, especially so soon in the article. No point going on after that.

First sentence says Iraq didn't do it. Both bolded sentences of yours say Iraq did.

[budgie]

No, I just read the article until it contradicted itself for the first time, especially so soon in the article. No point going on after that.

First sentence says Iraq didn't do it. Both bolded sentences of yours say Iraq did.

On a PBS Newshour interview of the July 9, 2004, former CIA official Larry Johnson asserted that "Both Iran and Iraq were using chemical weapons" during the Iran-Iraq war, and that that there is "some debate" in the intelligence community about who bombed Halabja: Iran or Iraq. Former CIA-analyst Stephen C. Pelletiere had revived the charge that Iran was responsible for gassing Halabja in an op-ed in the New York Times, Jan. 31, 2003, a charge that has been effectively refuted but is still kept alive by thoughtless repetition. And the greater irony is that now Saddam may be able to use this lie in his defense.

[armourer]

"All Stations, this is Alpha one Charlie, I say again F*CKING IRAQ GASSED THE KURDS, over".....

[budgie]

I think most people get it...for now. But I guarantee you as soon as **** Cheney starts claiming otherwise, 70% of them will jump ship.

[BarkingSquirrel]

???

Although it's not the government's official line (yet) the writer demonstrates quite clearly the motives behind the rumour.Whats the matter, why the edit that completely rewrote what you said. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

[budgie]

???

Although it's not the government's official line (yet) the writer demonstrates quite clearly the motives behind the rumour.Whats the matter, why the edit that completely rewrote what you said. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Typo. I was in the process of editing and checking the completed sample - as is my habit - and you kept jumping in so my thoughts got scrambled. it's a disease of the left. But save your childish tiskies's: I stand by what I said.

Although it's not the government's official line (yet) the writer demonstrates quite clearly the motives behind the rumour

I noticed that the first line is an assumption as the Bush administration hasn't officially charged Iran with the Halabja gassing. This is what they did with Iraq - spread disinformation via talking heads and media outlets so as to avoid charges of lying to the public themselves: they didn't openly charge Saddam with 9/11 but studies showed on the eve of war that the majority of war supporters not only believed that he was involved but that some of the hijackers were Iraqis (none were).

In an Oct 2002 Opinion poll by the Pew Research Center:
66% of Americans believed Saddam was involved in 9/11
And in Jan 2003, Knight Ridder reported that 'half of thoise surveyed thought that one or morte of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi'

(Rampton & Stauber: Weapons of Mass Deception; Robinson 2003)

Now where did the people get these ideas?

This is what they do - they use the media to disseminate rumours and actively encourage these to spread. What we see here, as per the start of this thread, is the beginning of the campaign to stir up resentment against Iran, cheaply using the same charges/evidence used against Iraq.

[ViktorNavorski]

Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that.

[budgie]

So statistics are unreliable, facts are unreliable and history is unreliable. The only reliable information is the holy truth passed down from the Lord W. in the scriptures of Fox.

So just for a laugh, heres a statistic I'm interested in: How many people here are starting to believe the Iranians gassed Halabja?

[ViktorNavorski]

So statistics are unreliable, facts are unreliable and history is unreliable. The only reliable information is the holy truth passed down from the Lord W. in the scriptures of Fox.

So just for a laugh, heres a statistic I'm interested in: How many people here are starting to believe the Iranians gassed Halabja?

Entertaining to see someone around here having an obsession with George W. Bush.

Do you use a dictionary, according to the dictionary, statistics and history are two completely different things. Facts are sure reliable, sit in on a congressional committee sometimes and see how lobbyist use reliable honest facts to get their view across and attain what they want.

[budgie]

Glad to entertain you.

[BarkingSquirrel]

???

Although it's not the government's official line (yet) the writer demonstrates quite clearly the motives behind the rumour.Whats the matter, why the edit that completely rewrote what you said. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Typo. I was in the process of editing and checking the completed sample - as is my habit - and you kept jumping in so my thoughts got scrambled. it's a disease of the left. But save your childish tiskies's: I stand by what I said.Typos don't delete an entire paragraph and replace it with a new one. And they sure don't restore the other paragraph, well, once you got called on the edit that is. Nice try though.

[Stolly]

Who gassed the Kurds ?

The British. And a damn fine idea it was as well. Better to gas them from the air than loose a hundred men attacking a fort or village we had no intention of keeping.

The thing you are debating is who gassed the Kurds again.