United nations - No proof thay Saddam gassed Kurds

[peaccenicked]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/helms.html

You cant believe anything the West says about Iraq.
Can You?

(sorry about earlier mislink.)

(Edited by peaccenicked at 2:53 am on Sep. 27, 2002)

[American Kid]

What makes them think it was more than likely the Iranians who gassed the Kurds?

-AK

[peaccenicked]

Are we reading the same article.I cant see what you are refferring to?

[American Kid]

"Photographs of them (grammar?) Kurdish victims were widely dissemenated in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the attack, even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemical weapons in this operation, and it seems likey that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds."

See, when I first started reading it, I thought,

"The fuck? But I've seen this on television. It's disturbing, Aushwitz-caliber disturbing. There are women lying prostrate on the ground with their infants cadled in their arms. I've SEEN it."

I mean, to me, that's proof.

In my opinion, the significant question the memo raises, is exactly "who" did the gassing. By making the inference it could've been Iran, it casts doubt that is was unilaterally Iraq.

But the next question then is, how do we know either way? As far as I knew (and my total knowledge of the backstory of this incident is far from "omnisicient" ;) ) the popular logic, was that it was Saddam's handiwork.

He was getting the Kurds back for what even the memo refers to as their "insurrection."

I don't know, I just think Saddam had more incentive to gas them where they stood, then their former allies did.
-AK

[peaccenicked]

To give it full context
''It appears that in seeking to punish Iraq, the Congress was influenced by another incident that occurred five months earlier in another Iraqi-Kurdish city, Halabjah. In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing a great many deaths. Photographs of them Kurdish victims were widely disseminated in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack, even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemicals in this operation, and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds.''
I thik the point for me is that this attack happened during the war. It suggest that Iran would use chemical weapons on Iraqi kurds. That is a strong possibility.
It is not clear either way, in the madness of it all.
However, the impression most people seem to have is that Saddam gassed his 'own' Kurds after the war.
Here there seems to be no evidence whatsoever.

[American Kid]

Well, to me there are three pretty good things:

a) a declaration by Saddam to crush the Kurds after the war.

B) the witness testimony from refugees in Turkey

c) and the videotape
-AK

[peaccenicked]

Saddam declared he would crush all rebellions (many commentators moan that the US let him)but he denied using gas. It does not make him right but the point is did he use gas.
As to point 2)..I will refer you here http://www.nybooks.com/articles/3441
As to point 3)..A video tape of a gas attack is hardly evidence, it could be anywhere and to some degree time

[American Kid]

I'll definetely agree that a videotape in and of itself, is not concrete proof of anything.

Hell, Jerry Bruckhiemer could've made the fuckin' thing. No doubt, I agree.

But I don't really believe anything Saddam says, as far as denying he used gas. What else does he deny, I wonder? (he's not such a stand-up guy)

And, lol, sorry Peacce, but your link didn't really help your cause, brah. No, I mean, thanks for posting it, it's just, I don't know,

I guess I'm just in Eddie Mortimer's corner, as opposed to Col. and the Good Doctor's. :)

Anyway, it's late. I've got to go. We'll do this again tomorrow.

Nice to keep it civil, eh?
-AK

[peaccenicked]

''The only evidence that gas was used is the eye-witness testimony of the Kurds who fled to Turkey, collected by staffers of the U.S. Senate. We showed this testimony to experts in the military who told us it was worthless. The symptoms described by the Kurds do not conform to any known chemical or combination of chemical''
Are you willing to dispute this?
Or would you rather maintain safe prejudices that do not seek the truth.

[munkey soup]

Alright, first off, I am no expert on the Iranian-Iraqi war.

But: Did Iran have any reason for bombing Halabjah? I've seen the video (on a documentary about doctors treating the illnesses in the village), and it looks to me like someone definately did bomb the place with intention of killing its citizens (unless it was, as said earlier, faked or a different time and place). Who bombed it I don't know. I always thought it was Iraq. But if that link is accurate, and Iran bombed Halabjah, then that changes things.

[peaccenicked]

The link looks accurate to me. I ran a google search and found nothing to directly contradict it. It seems strange that this claim would go unchallenged in a direct manner.
What Tucker, a US expert on chemical weapons produces is circumstantial evidence based on log entries and intercepted communications but surely that cannot be the only ''physical'' evidence left behind
to such a tragedy.
The whole thing looks dodgy to me and something cooked up by the dirty tricks brigade who live in Langley.

I think that we can safely assume to paraphrase the old saying. ''The first casuality of PREMEDITATED war is Truth''

It is such a shocking lie, no wonder people find it dificult to come to terms with.

[Stormin Norman]

You are even sicker than I thought, Peacenicked. This incident has been well documented by a wide range of media outlets. Photographs, videotapes, Associated Press reports all substantiate the State Departments facts on this matter. How can you know the facts on the matter, yet continue to cast doubt as to who was responsible for this act? I remember the news reports and the ongoing 'ethnic cleansing' that the Iraqi regime employed against the Kurds. Saddam is currently involved in such a campaign to rid the world of the Kurds. You can look no further than the horse's mouth (Saddam) for evidence linking him to the crime. You are a sick fuck. I no longer want to hear how much you care about the lives of anyone. Everyone in the world knows what happened, yet you deny the evidence that exists. What is wrong with you? This thread places you right up their with the Neo-Nazis that claim Auswitz never existed. Do you truly hate America enough to defend, or deny, such actions? How can you look at the dead children in the documented reports and take the line you do? You care nothing about humanity as you claim. I have said it before, I will say it again, Peacenicked does not care about equality, he is a proponent of death. The charges that he makes regarding capitalists being war mongering child killers are more suited for a man of his stature. What a scummy piece of shit.

[canikickit]

Who writes your jokes, Stormin Norman?

[peaccenicked]

SN.
What a unquestioning peice of shit?
I the US admin said the moon was made of cheese you would believe it.
Well documented by who?
When did Saddam admit to gassing Kurds?
You are all talk no hard evidence.
Why is the UN saying there was no evidence?

Provide some real answers rather than erratically backing up the your blindly patriotic lies, with emotionally potent oversimplifications and false accusations?



(Edited by peaccenicked at 9:41 pm on Sep. 27, 2002)

[Pinko]

Everyone, no matter what side of which fence they sit on, should be willing to question their beliefs in the face of any credible contradictory evidence. It may be that the evidence is not enough to convince, but it should always be considered.
Peaccenicked, as far as I can see, is questioning a commonly held belif that Iraq perpetrated these acts. In the face of a UN report that announces that there is little or no proof to say whether he did or did not gas those Kurds, anyone not willing to question what the commonly hold as the truth is nothing more than a blinkered fool.

[Stormin Norman]

Here is some empirical evidence. Source: London Times (http://my.net-link.net/~stahlhut/awful_truth/chemical_weapons.html)

Harvard has compiled a list of credible sources that document the atrocities committed by the Iraqi government. Many of them deal directly with the gassing of the Kurds. Some of them deal with environmental destruction, Kuwaiti invasion and torture tactics employed by Hussein. Whatever the scenario, I suggest that some of you go to your local library and pull the microfiche. You will see that it is you not I that have failed to investigate the situation. You are taking from one or two sources, while there are scores of documents that support the actual facts on the matter. You are the ones blinded be your overzealous ideological nature, not me. I suggest you do more homework in the future before quickly linking one source that supports your anti-American stance. (http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~irdp/ref/ref02.html)

Even your beloved Noam Chomsky recognizes the fact that Iraq gassed the Kurds. However, he remains critical of U.S. relations with Iraq at the time, since we failed to act in 1988 for fear of straining our position in the region. This is one of the many topics in the spoken word CD's produced by Alternative Tentacles, entitled Case Studies in Hypocrisy - US Human Rights Policy. (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws/2001/67/review.html)

Even your Guardian claims that Iraq used chemical weapons against the Kurds. This is funny, as I am citing a source that many of you leftist use from time to time. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,757034,00.html)

Would you commies believe it if it came from a heavily subsidized media outlet like PBS? (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/september96/kurds_9-6.html)

More Kurdish history. It is troubling how poorly these people have been treated by many western and eastern powers alike, not to mention, the force eradication by their blood brothers in the Ba'ath party. (http://www.newint.org/issue223/lies.htm)

Whatever the story, there is one thing that can be certain. That is the fact that it was Iraq who committed the atrocities in Halabja. Whether the British were the first to employ chemical weapons on the Kurds, or if the American government turned a blind eye in 1988 is not the issue at hand. I am simply putting to rest the predictable lies proposed by certain elements. Let's remember history in an attempt to prevent reoccurrence. Let's not try to mold it to support our arguments. Let's deal in facts, not lies and distortions. My original contention stands. Those who would overlook the well-documented history of such an event not only do an injustice to those who died, but they should be likened to the radical neo-nazis that claim documentation of Auswitz is a fraud.

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 8:57 pm on Sep. 28, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

All of your links assume that US claims are correct. The bigger the lie the more likely it is to believed. Even I believed it till recently.
All objections have been ignored and brushed aside There is a big difference between this and the Holocaust.
The holocaust happened.
There is a big difference between telling tales and showing that even Chomsky believed them and producing hard evidence, which you have failed to do.
You have failed to show that eye witnesses have seen in detail and how that tallies with the cyanide story.
Surely that would be possible if the story was true.
If the western media takes things at face value then it is not very good is it.
How about the claim that Iraq did not have cyanide gas? Where is it disclaimed?
In WW one, We were told that the Belgiums bayonetted babies.
Another big difference between the Iraqi fraud and the
holocaust is that this is being used as ''evidence'' to
start a war.

Where is the story that refutes the UN claim?

Spreading lies is not the same as refuting them.

[peaccenicked]

Another thing which through all of your great effort not to deal with the objections I have raised directly,you forgot about your claim that Saddam admitted to the gassing. I asked when?
Seeing you put some work into this, I have never seen enthusiastic blindness in with such aplumb before.
I hope you can see that your research as it stands is inadequate to prove the US case.
I actually appreciate this effort as it shows me how the goverment can manipulate the media and how the media can manipulate people.
I will continue to try and unearth the truth no matter what.

[peaccenicked]

HERE SN
this my 'friend' in the enemy camp, so to speak, perhaps more favoured by you than Chomsky is to me.
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/THO209A.html

[Stormin Norman]

"How about the claim that Iraq did not have cyanide gas? Where is it disclaimed?"-peacenicked

The claim that they did not have Cyanide gas is bullshit. Fact is, Iraqi officials failed to disclose the amounts of the material they had when subjected to weapons inspections. However, UNSCOM destroyed substantial amounts while in Iraq. Again you try to ignore the facts. I presented you with this same report when I made the case under "Saddam must go". Here it is again in case you overlooked it the first time.

Source:http://cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/ucreport...rt/dis_chem.htm (http://cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/ucreport/dis_chem.htm)

Here is a declassified CIA document that also suggests that Iraq had Cyanide.

source:http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/cia/960417/70596_01.htm

Knowing the extent of Saddam's capabilities, is it still hard for you to comprehend that he would be able to obtain one of these easiest chemical weapons to produce? Cyanide is a crude, but effective chemical weapon designed by the Germans to exterminate Jews. This is the same compound used in the notorious gas chambers.

Now you are simply grasping at thin air. I suggest you read the report that Blair put out last week, or go back to my thread and read the links I presented to you. Basically they are saying the same thing and have UNSCOM facts to support them. Next, you will be telling me is that the Nazis didn't have Cyanide, so they couldn't have killed all those Jews. Perhaps you will state flat out that such vile weapons were never deployed in WWI when massive opposing forces were engaged in trench warfare. Your bogus representation of the facts is overwhelming. How can one combat such striking ignorance? There is something wrong with you.

[Stormin Norman]

"HERE SN
this my 'friend' in the enemy camp, so to speak, perhaps more favoured by you than Chomsky is to me."

I don't know why you would say that. It looks like your source is another one of those pro-globalization organizations that I so despise. This is obviously partisan and reeks of agenda. Not only do they take issue with the fact that Iraq gassed the Kurds, but they proceed to criticize the U.N. imposed sanctions. Like I didn't see that one coming. I already read this report and disregarded it as bullshit, for want of a more credible source of information. It just doesn't wash in consideration of the facts, many of which I have presented to you. Why is it so hard for you to accept Saddam would gas the Kurds? He has been extremely vocal about promises to kill them, even after Halabja. He has the motive and the means. Eye witnesses and independent journalists (many I would consider to be left wing) have provided further evidence. If I were to believe the moon were made of cheese, that would be no less ridiculous than listening to you about this matter.

[peaccenicked]

That maybe so but this findings of the US army college is this
'' However, in the Halabjah incident, the USAWC investigators discovered that the gas used that killed hundreds of Kurds was the non-persistent gas, the chemical weapon of choice of the Iranians.''
I am not sure of the technical details but that suggests something different from you.

[peaccenicked]

The US army college are hardly unpatriotic are they?

[Stormin Norman]

"Even I believed it till recently."

Well, that makes me feel better considering that you are capable of believing any nonsense the you read in type. You are probably the most gullable, uncritical mind I have ever had the displeasure of meeting.

My stance on this war did not come easy, as I am concerned about giving to much power to the executive branch. That is why I support the war, as I do, and want Congress to declare it officially. This will ensure that our country act as a complete unit. Fuck the U.N.. It is Congress that must act. That is why I plan to vote Republican in this election. It is time for what Ann Coultier refers to as the 'treason lobby' to go. We must act unanimously. It amazes me that there are Hollywood and liberal spokespeople who disagree with this notion, even after the 11th. Like Rumsfeld said today, 'a gun smokes only after it is fired'. Therefore, why should we sit around and wait for a smoking gun when we know who it is that wants us dead?

[Stormin Norman]

No, the Army War College is hardly unpatriotic. However, I am looking for the original report. I think I should assess the information for myself rather than let a research globiliazation organization take it out of context. I think the full text article may provide insight into this striking contradiction. Somebody should put it to rest.

I never said I thought the Iranians were incapable of such acts. In fact, they should be next on the list of regimes to topple. Intelligence exists that suggests they have provided a safe haven for Al Quada training camps. Isn't the Bush Doctorine to hunt them down and kill them and anyone who provides them safe haven? I think this is the correct strategy when dealing with terrorist networks. There is plenty of evidence that suggests Iran is worse than Iraq, but we should deal with them one at a time. There are theories to suggest that an invasion in Iraq would produce a ripple effect. Some think that pro-democratic elements in Iran would view it as an opportunity and strike the fatal blow to their corrupt regime.

[peaccenicked]

Basically what you are saying is that all criticism of US is a product of gullibilty. Thats what all the authoritarians say. Our information is unquestionable. You are the biggest hypocrit I have came accross. You then do a Volte face and say Iran could have gassed the Kurds not Iraqi...in q sort of I dont know, I dont care kind of manner- we are gonna bomb Iran anyway next.

So Journalists go about misquoting the US army college.
yeah sure.

When did Saddam admit to using gas on the Kurds?
If Saddam had Cyanide gas, what prove that he used it.
The reports are saying it was Iran's prefferred weapon. If it was Iran why was Iraq blamed?
If the UN is so unimportant why does the US seek its backing?

Everything points to your inabilty to get out of your militarist anti American thinking (after all its militarism that makes the US unpopular) and answer me objectively.
How many objectively thinking people will accept "Fuck the UN'' as an answer to a question about their claims?

Of course Authoritarians are not objective but subjective.
They wish to impose their countries expansionist aims without any reference to the truths outside the propaganda they use for justifying expansionism.

Almost every population in the world opposed the Afghani war. They saw through the propaganda. Why cant you?

Another link for those really interested in the truth
http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/monterey...ald/4154781.htm (http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/4154781.htm)

(Edited by peaccenicked at 12:06 am on Sep. 29, 2002)


(Edited by peaccenicked at 12:09 am on Sep. 29, 2002)

[Pinko]

[Stomin Norman]
"Now you are simply grasping at thin air. I suggest you read the report that Blair put out last week, or go back to my thread and read the links I presented to you. Basically they are saying the same thing and have UNSCOM facts to support them. "

Have you read Blair's dossier? I have and there is nothing new in it, there is no proof, there is nothing but a rehashing of old facts and a whole bunch of unfounded speculation. Even when drawing from intelegence sources, there is nothing more specific than "an intelegence source showed that...".
There are some pretty aerial pictures of what could be anything being built on old military sites. I don't know about the US, but the UK often uses old military sites for non-military purposes after they are abandoned.
Blair's dossier showed nothing, statesmen around the world and people around the UK have condemed it as onthing but repackaging of old news. I have read it and I concur.