Hussein Did Not Gas Kurds!

[Crispy]

Maybe you ought to read the whole article instead of just the part you agree with. I was making an effort to show reports from both sides of the aisle. You really don't desire objectivity, do you? You want people to be as biased as you are, don't you? If you would have read the rest of the sources I provided, you would see your take on this is FOS.

The following is to remind you what you didn't read or conveniently disgarded.

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.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/helms

Heres another guy with selective reading skills. in this dude comes back with this:Stay off the Mad Dog[MD20/20], its just too much sugar!

Hey Billo,

I'll be fair with ya and say that these articles do present both assessments of what really took place if I read them right and to my fellow supporters of the Iraq war I'll say we want these types of articles brought out. Its important for us to fully understand our justifications for our actions if we are to succeed in Iraq. I'll say again as I've said before that I don't believe in using any information for purposes of negative propaganda but I don't believe this post represents that.

That said,

I've had many more reasons than this particular situation to support the war so even were I to believe he didn't gas his people It wouldn't change my mind. The underlying question in this situation is whether Sadaam was willing to do whatever was in his capacity to do to support and expand his power in the region including acting against his own people. I believe, this instance being truth or not, that he had the means and the willingness to secure his power at the expense of his own people and his neighbors.

 

[GPS_Flex]

and YOUR a mod?! UN freaking REAL

Yeah, I can’t believe they made one of the biggest posers on this thread a moderator.

Like you said: Un Freaking Real!

 

[GPS_Flex]

Unless you have forgotton how to read, I suggest you go down to Big 5 Sporting Goods store, pick yourself up a set of balls, then go to the sources I provided, and read them.

Pick up a set of balls? What are you saying Billo? Are you implying tr1414 has no testicles? Is this how you make your point?

You should apologize to tr1414 Billo.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by GPS_Flex:
Oh come on Billo, you should know me better than that by now.

I try to do you a favor and you presume me a liar? If you need a link, it might be better to just ask me for one next time rather than make the insinuation that I was somehow trying to mislead you.

When it comes to issues of integrity in their posts, you are one of the ones that have it, as opposed to the ones that want it.

Originally posted by GPS_Flex:
...he didn't say that at the Nuremberg trials.

He said that privately to Gustave Gilbert, an intelligence officer and psychologist, who later published the book “Nuremberg Diary” where the quote was originally revealed.

I guess your definition of the Nuremburg Trials is different than mine. When I think of the Trials, I think of all the events that occured at that time in that place. Apparently, you just think of the Trials just in the context of the actual trial in the courtroom. Which is not wrong. But niether was I. What he said was during that time.

I'm just wondering why you concerned yourself with the semantics of how his name was spelled, but you never commented on the relevence (or prophetic nature) of his statement itself? Which is much more important than his name or where he said it. Especially when many of the posters (in this forum), live this statement with every upload.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by GPS_Flex:
Your thread is laughable because there is no evidence to discount the numerous accounts of witnesses who testified that they saw Iraqi warplanes dropping the chemical agents and it doesn’t erase the numerous other uses of chemical weapons by Iraq on its own people.

Thank you for reading the sources and understanding my point before telling me I'm FOS. I can live with that.

Your assertion that this is "... laughable..." would only be valid if there was no credible evidence to the contrary. Which isn't the case. There are valid sources on both sides. That's why I posted them. In light of that, to say this is "...laughable...",is quite unfair.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by tr1414:
...and YOUR a mod?! UN freaking REAL

What do you know about reality?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Crispy:
I've had many more reasons than this particular situation to support the war so even were I to believe he didn't gas his people It wouldn't change my mind. The underlying question in this situation is whether Sadaam was willing to do whatever was in his capacity to do to support and expand his power in the region including acting against his own people. I believe, this instance being truth or not, that he had the means and the willingness to secure his power at the expense of his own people and his neighbors.

I never argue with someones beliefs. Thank you for your comments.

 

[GPS_Flex]

I thought I was doing you a favor by pointing out the misspelling. If you don’t see it that way, I won’t try to do you any more favors.

If you are ok with the claim that this quote occurred “at Nuremberg Trials”, suit yourself.

I happen to agree with his assessment but I won’t argue that issue here. I suggest you tend to the gaping holes I just put in your original post to this thread and start another thread if you want to argue Hermann Goering.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by GPS_Flex:
Pick up a set of balls? What are you saying Billo? Are you implying tr1414 has no testicles? Is this how you make your point?

You should apologize to tr1414 Billo

Would you two like to be alone?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by GPS_Flex:
I suggest you tend to the gaping holes I just put in your original post to this thread

I'm a little foggy on what your considering the "...gaping holes you have made." Care to explain?

 

[GPS_Flex]

What do you know about reality?

I happen to know a lot about moderating political forums because I spent two years doing just that. Have you ever moderated a political forum Billo?

I never argue with someones beliefs. Thank you for your comments.

Sure you do. You do it all the time. In fact, you do it with almost every post.

Not that there’s anything wrong with it but the reality is that’s what most of us do here and that’s the whole point behind having a political message board, isn’t it?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by GPS_Flex:
I happen to know a lot about moderating political forums because I spent two years doing just that. Have you ever moderated a political forum Billo?

What does this have to do with tr1414's lack of reality?

Originally posted by GPS_Flex:
Sure you do. You do it all the time. In fact, you do it with almost every post.

Not that there’s anything wrong with it but the reality is that’s what most of us do here and that’s the whole point behind having a political message board, isn’t it?

If this is what you believe, I'm not going to argue with that.

 

[superskippy]

I'm a little foggy on what your considering the "...gaping holes you have made." Care to explain?

For starters that both the Iraqi Military, and Iranian Government can both conclude that Iraq used chemical weapons on Halabja, as the log's of the Iraqi Military officials conclude. The only possible variables is whether the Iraqi's clearly mishandled the combat gas en route as they claim. Also whether or not Iran responded with a counter, which is highly un-likely due to the massive amount of Iranian supporters and soldiers in Halabja and has no basis in evidence.

The Iraqi military used chemical weapons at Halabja and it is foolhardy to consider otherwise.

 

[cnredd]

I'm a little foggy on what your considering the "...gaping holes you have made." Care to explain?

This is Post #14 from Billo Really...

Maybe you ought to read the whole article instead of just the part you agree with. I was making an effort to show reports from both sides of the aisle. You really don't desire objectivity, do you? You want people to be as biased as you are, don't you? If you would have read the rest of the sources I provided, you would see your take on this is FOS.

OK...Now read the TITLE of the thread...author by?...The very same Billo Really!...Hussein Did Not Gas Kurds!

Oh yeah...TONS of objectivity there! Objectivity rules!:rock

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by cnredd:
Oh yeah...TONS of objectivity there! Objectivity rules!

So the title negates the attempt at un-biased reporting in the sources provided?

We both have our personal opinions. The difference is, I don't think of myself as so high and mighty that I can speak for others or make their decisions for them.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by superskippy:
For starters that both the Iraqi Military, and Iranian Government can both conclude that Iraq used chemical weapons on Halabja, as the log's of the Iraqi Military officials conclude. The only possible variables is whether the Iraqi's clearly mishandled the combat gas en route as they claim. Also whether or not Iran responded with a counter, which is highly un-likely due to the massive amount of Iranian supporters and soldiers in Halabja and has no basis in evidence.

The Iraqi military used chemical weapons at Halabja and it is foolhardy to consider otherwise

Since there was Iranian supporters in the town, the didn't launch a counter-attack? You don't see the flaw in this logic?

How do you qualify that these were the "...only possible variables?"

If there is evidence to support both sides claims, why would it be "...foolhardy to consider otherwise?"

 

[Deegan]

Actually there is. Saddam said that someone who tried to assasinate him was from a kurdish town. It's possible he found it convienient to take responsibility for the gassing to intimidate the kurds at the time to prevent another assasination attempt.

So let me get this straight, when Amnesty says that Gitmo is a Gulag, they are spot on, but when they say the Kurds were gassed, it's political, LOL, o.k, got it now.:rofl

 

[GPS_Flex]

So, stop with the Hussein gassing mantra, its just not true!

Like I said, it’s laughable.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by GPS_Flex:
Like I said, it’s laughable.

Your just going to repeat what you said without elaborating or answering my question. How convenient.

Your holier-than-thou tome is disgusting!

 

[GPS_Flex]

Your just going to repeat what you said without elaborating or answering my question. How convenient.

I did elaborate and I did address the comments you made and I even went so far as to listen to the entire lecture given by Stephen C. Pelletiere and elaborated thereon.

You on the other hand, have thus far given no evidence to support your original claim.

Your position is laughable and you look like a kook when you make such proclamations.

 

[superskippy]

Since there was Iranian supporters in the town, the didn't launch a counter-attack? You don't see the flaw in this logic?

How do you qualify that these were the "...only possible variables?"

If there is evidence to support both sides claims, why would it be "...foolhardy to consider otherwise?"

No, you don't launch a gas attack on your own soldiers, the area in which the gas hit mainly in the town of Halabja, there were no Iraqi troops or open supporters. Only Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians and rebels were killed. This is not the hall mark of a counterattack even if the Iranians did counter with chemical weapons. They had nothing to hit.

It has long since been confirmed virtually right after the gas attacks were intitiated that the Iraqi military was responsible largly due to the Iraqi admission that the high amount of civilian death's was because of the mishandling of the combat gas.

It is a shame the debate has gone this far and really should be stopped soon.

There is no doubt that Iraq was responsible for the attacks.

Your not going to prove this absurd theory to anyone Billo it flies in the face of what the Iraqi Military admit's too, and what the Iranians confirm, along with every bit of fact.

Please end this, it only serves to tarnish the memory of the people killed by that brutal gas attack.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by superskippy:
No, you don't launch a gas attack on your own soldiers, the area in which the gas hit mainly in the town of Halabja, there were no Iraqi troops or open supporters. Only Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians and rebels were killed. This is not the hall mark of a counterattack even if the Iranians did counter with chemical weapons. They had nothing to hit.

It has long since been confirmed virtually right after the gas attacks were intitiated that the Iraqi military was responsible largly due to the Iraqi admission that the high amount of civilian death's was because of the mishandling of the combat gas.

It is a shame the debate has gone this far and really should be stopped soon.

There is no doubt that Iraq was responsible for the attacks.

Your not going to prove this absurd theory to anyone Billo it flies in the face of what the Iraqi Military admit's too, and what the Iranians confirm, along with every bit of fact.

Please end this, it only serves to tarnish the memory of the people killed by that brutal gas attack.

The only thing that is absurd, is the reaction that this is an open-and-shut case. If you think I'm "...tarnish[ing] the memory of the people killed by that brutal gas attack, then it is apparant to me, you don't care enough about the truth to do your own research objectively. I can tell, aside from being highly subjective, you really want this to be true. I bet you pray to Jesus that it is. You make statements like, "There is no doubt..." and "It is a shame...", conveniently ignorant of the facts that contradict your position. And you do this by design.

It is interesting, if this thread was about the US military torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib, I doubt you would be quoting the "...Iraq Military..." as a source.

I personally could care less what happens to Hussein. Evil dictator he definately was. Mistreated his own people, he definately did. Committed atrocities, you betcha. But so have there been many other dictators that we did nothing about and consider our allies. As I stated before on other threads, we knew this about Hussein back in the 1980's. Why didn't we do anything then?

If you still care to prove me wrong, start by reading the link below.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1779.htm

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by GPS_Flex:
I did elaborate and I did address the comments you made and I even went so far as to listen to the entire lecture given by Stephen C. Pelletiere and elaborated thereon.

You on the other hand, have thus far given no evidence to support your original claim.

Your position is laughable and you look like a kook when you make such proclamations.

If you don't think there is enough evidence out there to show that he didn't gas them, then you clearly do not walk your talk when you have signitures such as this:

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
John F. Kennedy

Your discomfort, in reading the opposite of your position, is very apparant. Drop the JFK reference, you tarnish his memory.

Another thing, I'm doing you the favor by refraining from saying your position on this issue is FOS. Because I see with clear vision that there is evidence on both sides of this aisle. Even though my opinion is, he didn't do it.

Just in case you want to man-up and face your discomfort, here's a link to do that with.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1779.htm

 

[superskippy]

The only thing that is absurd, is the reaction that this is an open-and-shut case. If you think I'm "...tarnish[ing] the memory of the people killed by that brutal gas attack, then it is apparant to me, you don't care enough about the truth to do your own research objectively. I can tell, aside from being highly subjective, you really want this to be true. I bet you pray to Jesus that it is. You make statements like, "There is no doubt..." and "It is a shame...", conveniently ignorant of the facts that contradict your position. And you do this by design.

It is interesting, if this thread was about the US military torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib, I doubt you would be quoting the "...Iraq Military..." as a source.

I personally could care less what happens to Hussein. Evil dictator he definately was. Mistreated his own people, he definately did. Committed atrocities, you betcha. But so have there been many other dictators that we did nothing about and consider our allies. As I stated before on other threads, we knew this about Hussein back in the 1980's. Why didn't we do anything then?

If you still care to prove me wrong, start by reading the link below.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1779.htm

When two enemies in a time of war both agree on something one of the combatants did, your on extremely shaky ground at best when you contest it. The Iraqi's acknowledge using the weapons, and the Iranians acknowledge that the weapon's were used by the Iraqi's at Halabja. In fact most of the chemical material used was cultivated by the American's and the helicopter's and planes used by the Iraqi's were American bought. Following the attack the Americans were quick to condemn and cover their track's and stopped the quasi aid of the Iraqi chemical weapons efforts.

All of what your link say's is irrelivant, it describes that the event's were hazy, but this is quashed by the Iraqi's taking responsbility, which was then reinforced by Iran's accusations which lead to Iraq's explination to the UN about why so many civilians had been killed.

Sorry Billo but this theory just won't fly. Solid indusputable fact's exhist. The Iraqi's admitted they did it, and the Iranians assert they did it. There is no doubt.

 

[GPS_Flex]

It is interesting, if this thread was about the US military torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib, I doubt you would be quoting the "...Iraq Military..." as a source.

This is about the only intelligent thing you’ve said thus far but I fear you’ve no idea what it is you actually said that makes sense for once Billo.

There is no argument here Billo. Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people many times. You deny this fact and you look like an idiot for doing so. What more is there to argue?