babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Is "Chemical Ali" responsible for the gassing of Kurds at Halabja?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Is "Chemical Ali" responsible for the gassing of Kurds at Halabja?
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 19 December 2004 12:09 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think "Chemical Ali" should get 'his due'.
However, it is far from certain that he is responsible for the gassing of Kurds at Halabja.
Yet, the media all dutifully report this as if there was proof he did it.
If the cause is as just as GWB and Tony B.Liar claim, why has the dossier been transcended by lies?

Extract about the author:

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.


FAIR USE. EMPHASIS ADDED


Common Dreams NewsCenter

Sunday, December 19, 2004Friday, October 29, 2004

Originally published on Friday, January 31, 2003 by the New York Times

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

MECHANICSBURG, Pa. — ....

The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is ... familiar part .... 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......

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,... These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them. ....

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. ...."

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


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 20 December 2004 02:19 PM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, among other organizations, have apparently documented Iraqi responsibility.

What is awful is that the US vetoed UN resolutions condemning Iraq for the attacks because Saddam Hussein was an ally against Iran at the time. The White House also vetoed Congressional votes condemning the attacks.

The US report referred to was written during this period of intense international and domestic pressure on the US to condemn their Iraqi ally. I recall reading articles in the European press which was going berserk over the gassings. The evidence is that only civilians were targetted. Rescuers to the village found only civilians. There was a battle in the region but if the Iraqis had by mistake hit civilians, there should have also been Kurdish guerillas and/or Iranians soldiers/commandos among the thousands of dead. The reporters and rescuers only found civilians if I recall.

There is evidence that Western companies supplied Iraq with the components to build the chemical weapons used. This is one of the reasons why the European press went bananas, besides the horror of using poison gas on mothers, granddads and little kids.

So it seems generally agreed (and proven) that Iraqis did it. And that this was part of a campaign to kill as many Kurds as possible and destroy hundreds of Kurdish villages.

They just happened to do it when they were "good guys" in the eyes of the White House. Now they're "bad guys", so it's brought up against them. Not that it shouldn't. They did do it on purpose.

Don't known about the author of this article though. A bit fishy on the surface.

[ 20 December 2004: Message edited by: Critical Mass ]


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 20 December 2004 03:49 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think we can add the "Saddam gassed his own people" myth to the pack of lies told by the Bushler regime in their attempt to justify mass murder of Iraqi's for oil.

PM Blair admits mass graves claim untrue


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 21 December 2004 10:36 AM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
That claim was made by Blair. He is not a spokesperson for Amnesty International, or Human rights Watch or other credible human rights groups. They have all documented Iraqi responsibility for Halabja.

I have noticed of late on a number of threads relating to human rights that some individuals discount human rights abuses if people they dislike have mentioned them. This has nothing to do with a serious concern for human rights.

This has come up in relation to Sudan, Yugoslavia, the Middle East, Cuba and other countries like Ukraine.

The US, Russia, Israel, Palestine, the UK, others will misuse and distort reports of human rights abuses by rivals for their own political purposes.

This does not mean the violations have not occurred.

I get the distinct feeling that there is a "the enemies of my enemies can do no wrong" mentality here on many occasions.

That is not a proper way to deal with the issue. We should remember that those very basic rights should be respected in all circumstances and it should not matter who violated them.

The US and the UK tried to bury the revelations of Iraqi gassings in the 1980s. Just because they find it politically convenient to suddenly remember those attacks today should not detract from looking at the facts of the case. Those facts point to Iraq.

[ 21 December 2004: Message edited by: Critical Mass ]


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 21 December 2004 11:16 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Can anyone verify that Amnesty International has indeed released a report with evidence that Iraq gassed Iraqi Kurds?

There was a report from '92 I believe that made the claim, but used "evidence" available at the time which was left out a lot of which is now known.

There is mention in several sources I found while google-ing for the information that makes reference to a 2001 Amnesty International report, but any reports by AI that I found made no specific mention of any gassing instance.

I've found lots of AI documents that document Iraqi human rights abuses (they're almost as bad as the USA in that regard) but I can't find any recent confirmation that the original assessment of the Iraqis gassing Iraqi Kurds.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rand McNally
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5297

posted 21 December 2004 11:22 AM      Profile for Rand McNally     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I get the distinct feeling that there is a "the enemies of my enemies can do no wrong" mentality here on many occasions.

Amen brothers and sisters. I too have noticed this binary thinking on many occasions. It seems that there are people that are willing to raise all who oppose the US to the level of angles. Such binary thinking is dangerous and shows a lack of intellectual honesty. There are plenty of regressive elements opposing the US; we should not confuse our aims and theirs. The US did this in the 80; “Hey lets train, fund, and arm religious fanatics to fight godless commies, what could go wrong.” We are living through the blow back from that project currently. We have to be willing to be honest about both our friends and enemies.


From: Manitoba | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 21 December 2004 01:24 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Except that in the instance being discussed, it was actually "Let's train and fund godless Commies so they can fight religious fanatics" - with much the same effect.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 21 December 2004 01:30 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Juan Cole article on the subject

quote:
In a recent New York Times op-ed, Stephen Pelletiere argued that the March, 1988, gassing of Kurds during the waning months of the Iran-Iraq war may have been perpetrated by Iran, not Iraq. This issue has taken on importance because Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's gassing of the Kurds is often given as one ground for the U.S. to go to war to effect regime change. As it happens, Pelletiere, a former CIA analyst, is just plain wrong and appears not to have kept up with documentation made available during the past decade.

As a result of the successful bid for autonomy of Kurds in northern Iraq under the U.S. no-fly zone, tens of thousands of documents from the Iraqi secret police and military were captured by Kurdish rebels from 1991 forward. These were turned over to the U.S. government. Some ten thousand of them have been posted to the World Wide Web at the Iraq Research and Documentation Program at the Center for Middle East Studies of Harvard University: http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~irdp/.

The captured documents explicitly refer to Iraqi use of chemical weapons against Kurds, called "Anfal" (spoils) operations. Some documents were reviewed by Human Rights Watch in the early 1990s, which issued a report, entitled "Genocide in Iraq." Robert Rabil, a researcher with the IRD Program, has also published an analysis of the documents, in the Middle East Review of International Affairs.

The documents under review never mention Iraqi authorities taking precautions against Iranian uses of chemical weapons, and there is no good evidence that Iran did so. Since Iran and the Kurds were allies, Iran in any case had no motive to gas thousands of Kurds. The Baath documents do frequently mention the Anfal campaign of February-September 1988, when high Baath officials in the north were authorized to gas the Kurds.


I don't understand why anyone would want to obfusticate this issue by questioning Saddam's responsibility. The real issue is the west's (particularily the U.S.'s) complicity and subsequent silence.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rand McNally
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5297

posted 21 December 2004 01:44 PM      Profile for Rand McNally     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ronb, good point; I have Afghanistan on the mind today because I just finished reading a very interesting book called "Charlie Wilson's war”, on the CIA's support of the Mujahideen. It contains a interesting afterward where it lists a number of the CIA's top “freedom fighters” from the 80's who have now been killed or are hunted by the US as “terrorists”.
From: Manitoba | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 21 December 2004 02:38 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"It seems that there are people that are willing to raise all who oppose the US to the level of angles."

That's not the point at all.

Besides my first sentence was:
"I think "Chemical Ali" should get 'his due'."

Saddam was/is a bastard.

The point is the TRUTH.

While I don't know if Pelletiere is correct or not, what most here are ignoring is his claim that Saddam did NOT have the particular kind of chemical agent.

May he rot in hell for what he did. But everything beyond that is just political spin of the war mongers trying to justify their invasion, which may I recall, was for oil and (maybe) water.

Yes, I have read AI files on Halabja and went to a Kurdish website some time ago. I have not seen any PROOF that convinces me.

So what about Pelletiere's claim that it was a nerve agent Iraq did not possess or use?

Any proof to the contrary?

If the rotten deeds of Saddam were indeed the reason for invading why is Rumsfeld posing in such jovial manner with the guy who boiled some of his victims alive?

[ 21 December 2004: Message edited by: VanLuke ]


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 21 December 2004 02:45 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

Or if you want to see G.W. Bush or Powell being chummy with this murderer, check this out:

"Photos: Senior US Officials Cozy up to Dictator Who Boils People Alive"
http://www.thememoryhole.org/pol/us-and-uz.htm

Or that 'nice guy':

[ 21 December 2004: Message edited by: VanLuke ]


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 21 December 2004 02:52 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by black_dog:
I don't understand why anyone would want to obfusticate this issue by questioning Saddam's responsibility. The real issue is the west's (particularily the U.S.'s) complicity and subsequent silence.

What's wrong with wanting to know the facts as to whether Iraq, Iran, or someone else gassed the Kurds?

Sorry if I don't just automatically believe everything someone says without bothering to check if there are facts to back up the information.

Look, there is some conflicting information out there, such as the "fact" that the gas the Kurds died from was one that was used by Iran , and not Iraq ... now this may be a case where one attack by Iran is being confused as representing all the attacks by gas of the Kurds, but that still is no reason not to explore the truth, beyond the simple accepptance of a couple of media reports from the USA rags ... not that they've ever mislead us before, right?

I have my suspicions, but so far no one has been able to clear up the loose-ends.

1) Where are those AI reports that people speak of? I can find the early 90's report, but the more recent one being refered to with supposedly more up to date information does not seem to exist, or at least I was unable to find it, although I did find AI reports in Iraq for 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, etc, but no information on the gas attacks is contained within any of them.

2) The link to the Harvard database looked hopeful, but the databsase is no longer accessible. Seems to have some technical problems, but I will check back later to check out the documents liberated by the Kruds from Saddam proving Saddam gassed the Kurds.

3) What is available on the Harvard site is as follows:

quote:
18-Anfal (also Halabja):

The notorious chemical campaign to destroy a host of Kurdish villages, towns and areas during 1988 is an internationally recognized case of genocide, yet it is the most understudied. Apart from one monograph by a human rights watchdog, literally nothing has been written on this topic. As a term or reality, the Anfal crusade has fed into the traumatized collective memory of the Kurds. Much research is needed in this area in terms of operations, effects and liability. The IDEA cross section stands a good chance of assisting researchers in this area to produce good papers, indictment evidence or historical records.

[Major Keywords: Anfal, 113 docs., Halabja, 363 docs.; chemical weapons, 47 docs. Other key words may also yield: deportation 582, confiscation 249].


Hardly the be-all-and-end-all of definitive proof either way.

----

Now none of this is to say that Saddam was not 100% responsible, he well could be, and I would be very happy if we could prove this and get on with the necessary process that should follow, rather than having to argue about what *might* have taken place.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 21 December 2004 02:59 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The bastards funded Hitler to fight the Nazi war of annihilation against Russia, and they funded bin Laden, too. When it comes to opposition against communism, the rich and powerful of the world pull out all the stops. And the peons have paid for these political blood baths all with taxes and death.

Our economic overlords have dealt with the devil on several occasions to protect their a$$ets.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 21 December 2004 03:07 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Two articles side by side: One writtten by the Ombudsman of the TO Star concluding that Saddam did probably not do this, the other one saying he did it, without a doubt (also has some links including a working link to the Harvard archives).

http://www.unknownnews.net/0301-1.html

[ 21 December 2004: Message edited by: VanLuke ]


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 21 December 2004 03:34 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by VanLuke:
Two articles side by side: One writtten by the Ombudsman of the TO Star concluding that Saddam did probably not do this, the other one saying he did it, without a doubt (also has some links including a working link to the Harvard archives).

http://www.unknownnews.net/0301-1.html

[ 21 December 2004: Message edited by: VanLuke ]


Note the total confusion of the information available.

One article says the gas used was likely cyanide-based, a gas known to be used by Iran and not Iraq, and the other article says exactly the oppisite:

The star article reports:

quote:
"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."

The History News Network reports:

quote:
lthough some analysts say the gas used was hydrogen cyanide (not in Iraq's arsenal), others have suggested it might have been sarin, VX, and tabun. Iraq is known to have these agents. (Iran is not known to have hydrogen cyanide, in any case).

Also the History News Network uses links of an Israeli organization, which one must question as to the whether there might be a bias when it comes to this organization reporting on ME issues.

Also, the Harvard Database is still down ... I can get to the site, but the database itself is not working when I try to browse or search documents.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rand McNally
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5297

posted 21 December 2004 03:57 PM      Profile for Rand McNally     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
VanLuke, I was not referring to you, nor to this thread; my apologies, I did not make that clear. I have no idea what Ali's involvement was. It would not really affect my outlook too much to find a different group of thugs than I orginally thought did it. I was responding to the more general comment by Critical Mass. I agree the truth should be the important thing, and it should have a value higher than political expedience. This is a lession I think that both the left and right have to learn.
From: Manitoba | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 21 December 2004 03:59 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No Yards

did you agree to their conditions of use here:
http://66.134.128.98/Select/index.htm
Then there are also an unusual number of instructions; I just skimmed the surface but maybe that's where the solution to your problem is.

BTW none of the 18 links re Halbja provide ANY evidence about who is responsible.

[ 21 December 2004: Message edited by: VanLuke ]


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 21 December 2004 04:12 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Rand McNally

"I agree the truth should be the important thing"

Thank you.

Also keep in mind that things are often invented for 'strategic' reasons. (e.g. Gulf of Tonkin)


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 21 December 2004 04:18 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by VanLuke:
No Yards

did you agree to their conditions of use here:
http://66.134.128.98/Select/index.htm
Then there are also an unusual number of instructions; I just skimmed the surface but maybe that's where the solution to your problem is.

[ 21 December 2004: Message edited by: VanLuke ]


Yeah, I agreed to the conditions, then selected "Browse folders" and "Search folders" links, and tried to browse and/or search, but I keep getting a "database closed" message whenever try to actually browse or search. ???


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 21 December 2004 04:50 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Critical Mass:

I have noticed of late on a number of threads relating to human rights that some individuals discount human rights abuses if people they dislike have mentioned them.

While that sounds bad, I think you have to consider looking at it with the word "distrust" substituted for "dislike".

In this particular case, I think it's much more likely the Iraqis did it--given which, "chemical Ali" was no doubt involved. The whole "what gas was used" thing seems somewhat tenuous; we know Iraq hasn't had any WMD just lately, but nobody was inspecting them back then, they could have had anything. And the judgment of what gas wasn't based on any kind of solid forensics near as I could see, either--it's an anecdote; they looked (to someone--who?) as if they'd died of one gas and not another one. Whatever.
But politically, I don't see what Iran would have had to gain from alienating the Kurds; if they were going to use poison gas they'd use it against Iraqi troops. If anything, my understanding was that they had hopes at the time of getting enough Kurds unhappy with Sadam on side to guide an Iranian offensive through the mountains and maybe scout for them. The Iraqi government, on the other hand, saw the Kurds as frankly a group that was destabilizing and potentially dangerous, who needed to be put out of the way where possible so Sunnis could consolidate. So, I would figure Iraq.

But I can see where people get the kind of baseline assumption that, if mainstream sources say something, and there is something political for the establishment to gain from it, then the presumption is that it's false. Because, the establishment are liars and propagandists and mainstream news at best gobbles their lies uncritically, at worst is an active partner in spreading them. It just happens that the convenient conventional wisdom may happen to be true this time--but that's just one of those weird things.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 21 December 2004 05:03 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This just turns into a hall of mirrors once you start trying to ascribe motivations to the players - perhaps the Iranians were behind it precisely for the reason you gave. They were trying to turn the Iraqi Kurds against Saddam, so they gassed them and blamed the Iraqis.

All of which overlooks the obvious - the US used Saddam as a proxy to take out all of the munitions that they had given the Shah over the years. The US wanted that war, so they bought and paid for it. All of it.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 21 December 2004 06:37 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I think we can add the "Saddam gassed his own people" myth to the pack of lies told by the Bushler regime in their attempt to justify mass murder of Iraqi's for oil

The Juan Cole link, cited above,

(http://hnn.us/articles/1242.html )

refers to a ten-thousand document collection at Harvard University which discusses the gassing programme directed against the Kurds.

Cole, who is fluent in Arabic and a well-regarded professor of Middle Eastern studies, summarizes their content as follows:

"The Baath documents do frequently mention the Anfal campaign of February-September 1988, when high Baath officials in the north were authorized to gas the Kurds."


Saddam was using poison gas against Iran in the Iraq-Iran war. That was the subject of United Nations resolutions, and never denied. Does it seem so unlikely that it was also used against the Kurds, who were allied with Iraq?

------

Those who claim that this is a lie used to justify the mass murder of Iraqis for oil should tell us why the US would make up an atrocity story and set it in 1988, when Iraq was a US ally. If you are going to lie, why not make it a more recent event? One which doesn't implicate Donald Rumsfeld?

PS: Here's an interesting story by Eric Margolis...though he claims the question of guilt is "murky", the rest of his analysis is solid.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Eric_Margolis/2004/12/19/790077.html

[ 21 December 2004: Message edited by: jeff house ]


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 21 December 2004 08:01 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My problem with the information you cite, is that:

1) It is documents "liberated" by the Kurds documenting atrocities against Kurds ... not saying it couldn't be, but it does raise some qiestions.

2) The Harvard University database may document many Saddam atrocities (Idon't know, I can't get in as yet,) but for the specific case in question, the Harvard University site makes the statement:

quote:
Anfal (also Halabja):

The notorious chemical campaign to destroy a host of Kurdish villages, towns and areas during 1988 is an internationally recognized case of genocide, yet it is the most understudied. Apart from one monograph by a human rights watchdog, literally nothing has been written on this topic. As a term or reality, the Anfal crusade has fed into the traumatized collective memory of the Kurds. Much research is needed in this area in terms of operations, effects and liability. The IDEA cross section stands a good chance of assisting researchers in this area to produce good papers, indictment evidence or historical records.


3) USA lies: If it were all a case of the information coming soley from the current US administration I would say that it is a case where they don't really care what lie they tell, nor the transparancy of the lie, as they KNOW that simply repeating the same lie enough times will make it the truth in the eyes of Americans ... but if this is a lie, then it spans many administrations, and is probably the result of layering one lie on top of another until the whole house of lies takes on a life of its own ... or it could be the truth or some version of it, but the answer to that inquiry remains unanswered as far as I'm cncerned.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 21 December 2004 08:21 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mind you, doesn't the CIA report date from back when they needed the lie to go the other way? That is, from back when Saddam was their boy wonder beating up the evil Iranians? The US motivations for which way a lie on the subject should slant have undergone some serious revisions over time. "Evidence" of Iran doing it could just reflect which way they needed to lie at the time.
From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca