• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Hussein Did Not Gas Kurds!

Originally posted by GPS_Flex:
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?
Click to expand...
I'm not saying catagorically that he did not. I'm just saying there is evidence out there that he didn't. And that it is not outragous or ludicrous to think it this.
 
Originally posted by superskippy:
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.
Click to expand...
The only thing in doubt, is the level of peanut butter between your ears. The link is only irrelevant, because you can't spell it!
 
VTA said:
How do you know Bush is the bad guy? Some media pundit tell you so?
No one seems to mind taking at face value the rhetoric slanted to make their point valid, as long as it helps them win an argument.

Don't take my word for it; I'd suggest you dig up Saddaams biography, there are plenty around, and they're not written by the American Government.
Click to expand...

Have I ever once said in this forum that Bush is evil? No. Have I ever said that he lied? No. I pointed out that the American government has a history of distorting facts to make them in it's favor. Unless it's an autobiography I'm not interested because otherwise it's still HERESAY.
 
Billo_Really said:
The only thing in doubt, is the level of peanut butter between your ears. The link is only irrelevant, because you can't spell it!
Click to expand...

Since you can't seem to give a response to my last post other than an attempted insult, I'll copy and paste it for you.

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 irrelevant, 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.

There I corrected the letter in the word Irrelevant does that sate you, oh high and mighty one, whom is so far above my dismal post's he cannot refute them. :roll: :roll:
 
Forget him..... he lives in his own world all alone..... come even some of you far left libs can see that Billo just likes to **** people off.
 
Originally posted by superskippy:
Since you can't seem to give a response to my last post other than an attempted insult, I'll copy and paste it for you.

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 irrelevant, 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.

There I corrected the letter in the word Irrelevant does that sate you, oh high and mighty one, whom is so far above my dismal post's he cannot refute them.
Click to expand...
Would you care to provide the "jelly" to back up your "peanut butter?"
 
Billo_Really said:
Many people bring up the issue of Hussein gassing his own people (the Kurds). They use this as one of the main reasons why he needed to be taken out. The links below indicate the gassings were not of his doing. In fact, quite possibly, it was the Iranians.

I think Hussein is an evil piece of $hit. He's garbage in my eyes. Still, this is not justification to violate International Law and attack just to make a regime change.

http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemiraqgas2.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/helms

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

So, stop with the Hussein gassing mantra, its just not true! Unless you care to debate it.
Click to expand...

Okay Billo. Let me jump in. From my brief run through on this topic I see that Tetracide and supperskippy have this debate well in hand. And I was the trained NBC enlisted guy for my platoon in Germany. Creepy stuff that gas. Have you seen any film of animals being gassed with nerve agent? Gave me great faith in Atropine. Wish I had some in the fridge right now. But I digress.

Billo, why would the Iranians gas Kurds? Logic please, no links. As I always say, anyone can post links. I'm seriously considering a one time breaking of my self imposed no link rule to post a link that states the moon is made of cheese. I bet there's one out there. Get my point?
 
Originally posted by teacher:
Okay Billo. Let me jump in. From my brief run through on this topic I see that Tetracide and supperskippy have this debate well in hand. And I was the trained NBC enlisted guy for my platoon in Germany. Creepy stuff that gas. Have you seen any film of animals being gassed with nerve agent? Gave me great faith in Atropine. Wish I had some in the fridge right now. But I digress.

Billo, why would the Iranians gas Kurds? Logic please, no links. As I always say, anyone can post links. I'm seriously considering a one time breaking of my self imposed no link rule to post a link that states the moon is made of cheese. I bet there's one out there. Get my point?
Click to expand...
The biggest point I am trying to make here is that there is valid evidence on both sides. It is not a slam dunk one way or the other. None of us were there. None of us really know for sure. All we have to go on is what has been stated in the previous posts and links.

This knee jerk reaction to think what someone says is totally ridiculous says more about the person saying it, than the person they are saying that about.

If people would like me to get outragous, I have the ability to go way beyond this thread and show them what outragous is all about. Like asking the question, "Would they pray to Charles Manson?" After all, they pray to St. Paul. Do you know who St. Paul was before he was St. Paul?
 
Billo_Really said:
Do you know who St. Paul was before he was St. Paul?
Click to expand...
Sarcastic:
Paul the highly religious one?
Sexist:
Paulette. (Before the sex change).
Recalcitrant:
If your so smart, you tell me.
Ignorant:
Paul who?
Scientific:
Paul the embryo.
Apathetic:
Who the f cares who he was.
Inquisitive:
Oh father, please do tell us.
Combative:
I got your Paul hanging.
Mean spirited:
Paul the garden variety pedophile.
Arrogant:
Of course I, teacher, of the massive brain, know who he was.
Submissive:
I've been naughty, you will tell this worthless slave who Paul was should you deem I deserve to know master.
Stupid:
St. Bernard's second cousin twice removed.
Islamic:
Just another infidel who should be converted or killed. God is great.
Ridiculous:
That guy you paid off by borrowing money from Peter.
Stoned:
Didn't he jam with Peter and Mary? I saw that dude in concert.
Gordontravels:
Don't stray from the topic or I'll ignore this thread.
Justincredible:
A untrustworthy man.
Kelzie:
Paul the meat eater. Then he went vegan. Thus the Saint add on.
teacher:
A disciple?
 
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/helms/

Well, this is an extremely out of date article (1998) and you can tell so also from the information it says. For example, it says that 1.3 million is more than 3000 times the number of Kurds killed. Now, multiply 400,000 by 3000 and tell me if if it is still less 1.3 million.

And as for the examples that claim that Saddam didn't have any gas, what are they concluding, that he threw away the weapons that WE[\b] gave him because he'd rather commit genocide in a more humane way.
 
Originally Posted by Billo_Really
Do you know who St. Paul was before he was St. Paul?
Click to expand...
Originally posted by teacher:
Sarcastic:
Paul the highly religious one?
Sexist:
Paulette. (Before the sex change).
Recalcitrant:
If your so smart, you tell me.
Ignorant:
Paul who?
Scientific:
Paul the embryo.
Apathetic:
Who the f cares who he was.
Inquisitive:
Oh father, please do tell us.
Combative:
I got your Paul hanging.
Mean spirited:
Paul the garden variety pedophile.
Arrogant:
Of course I, teacher, of the massive brain, know who he was.
Submissive:
I've been naughty, you will tell this worthless slave who Paul was should you deem I deserve to know master.
Stupid:
St. Bernard's second cousin twice removed.
Islamic:
Just another infidel who should be converted or killed. God is great.
Ridiculous:
That guy you paid off by borrowing money from Peter.
Stoned:
Didn't he jam with Peter and Mary? I saw that dude in concert.
Gordontravels:
Don't stray from the topic or I'll ignore this thread.
Justincredible:
A untrustworthy man.
Kelzie:
Paul the meat eater. Then he went vegan. Thus the Saint add on.
teacher:
A disciple?
Click to expand...
He was Saul of Tarsus. Someone who was responsible for many more deaths than Manson. Yet we now consider him a saint. Not that I am lobbying for Charlie. Charlie's where he should be.

You would actually go to a Peter, Paul and Mary concert. Man, I'd have to puff a lot of magic dragons for me to go to one of those.

My favorite was the Combative response.

If Clinton can say he's the only one in the world that likes both George Bush and John Kerry, then I can say I like both teacher and tiktok.
 
Originally posted by teacher:
But I digress. Why would Iran gas the Kurds?
Click to expand...
I don't think they were gassing the Kurds. I think they were gassing the Iraqi's and the Kurds were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
 
Billo_Really said:
You would actually go to a Peter, Paul and Mary concert. Man, I'd have to puff a lot of magic dragons for me to go to one of those.
Click to expand...
OMG. Where did I ever say anything like that. Next your gonna call my children names. That borders on name calling and I'm gonna go tattle now. Mom, Billo's calling me names. No I'm not on a porn site. Yea, that's the guy. The one with colon tartar for gray matter.

My favorite was the Combative response.
Click to expand...
That figures you brute. Mine is a tie beween ridiculous and Gordontravels.


If Clinton can say he's the only one in the world that likes both George Bush and John Kerry, then I can say I like both teacher and tiktok.
Click to expand...

I'm deeply confused. Thank god nothings changed.
Click to expand...
 
teacher said:
Sarcastic:
Paul the highly religious one?
Sexist:
Paulette. (Before the sex change).
Recalcitrant:
If your so smart, you tell me.
Ignorant:
Paul who?
Scientific:
Paul the embryo.
Apathetic:
Who the f cares who he was.
Inquisitive:
Oh father, please do tell us.
Combative:
I got your Paul hanging.
Mean spirited:
Paul the garden variety pedophile.
Arrogant:
Of course I, teacher, of the massive brain, know who he was.
Submissive:
I've been naughty, you will tell this worthless slave who Paul was should you deem I deserve to know master.
Stupid:
St. Bernard's second cousin twice removed.
Islamic:
Just another infidel who should be converted or killed. God is great.
Ridiculous:
That guy you paid off by borrowing money from Peter.
Stoned:
Didn't he jam with Peter and Mary? I saw that dude in concert.
Gordontravels:
Don't stray from the topic or I'll ignore this thread.
Justincredible:
A untrustworthy man.
Kelzie:
Paul the meat eater. Then he went vegan. Thus the Saint add on.
teacher:
A disciple?
Click to expand...

Classic...simply classic....:congrats:
 
Billo_Really said:
I don't think they were gassing the Kurds. I think they were gassing the Iraqi's and the Kurds were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps the Iranians did do it to make it look like it was Iraq.
 
teacher said:
Why would Iran gas the Kurds?
Click to expand...
He isn’t going to answer because he knows he is full of it. The facts are hard and sound as it relates to what happened but he lives in a different world than the rest of us.

The reality is there are those among us who will stoop to any level in an attempt to slander the USA. Billo doesn’t concern himself with the facts but he likes to pretend he does.

You haven’t agued anything Billo! You’ve “conveniently” ignored every fact thrown your way and refuse to argue the issue. Any respect I once had for you has been lost. You are nothing but a two bit hack and I consider you no better than a troll now.

I like to think I’m a fair man and gave you every opportunity to make an argument but you’re acting like a troll and that’s giving you credit for having some smarts!
 
Billo_Really said:
The biggest point I am trying to make here is that there is valid evidence on both sides. It is not a slam dunk one way or the other. None of us were there. None of us really know for sure. All we have to go on is what has been stated in the previous posts and links.

This knee jerk reaction to think what someone says is totally ridiculous says more about the person saying it, than the person they are saying that about.

If people would like me to get outragous, I have the ability to go way beyond this thread and show them what outragous is all about. Like asking the question, "Would they pray to Charles Manson?" After all, they pray to St. Paul. Do you know who St. Paul was before he was St. Paul?
Click to expand...


Your reasoning is ridiculous, and revolves around the idea "We weren't there so we don't know" does that mean you don't believe the holocaust happened? Or World War 1? Or World War 2? After all, all you have is document's, and photographs, and government admittance, and eyewitness accounts. Oh wait that is exactly what we have for Halabja.

Chemical weapons including a mix of VX were used on Halabja, thousands of Kurd's and Iranian soldiers were killed. There were not even any Iraqi Battalions in the area. The only viable target for miles were Iranian troop's and Kurdish supporters. Iran had no reason to fire on it's advancing troop. All of this does not even matter though, when the Iraqi military admit's it's guilt and gives and explination for why it happened. Iran confirms that assertion. This is confirmed along with the fact that the gas used was gas the Americans had sold Iraq. Two bitter enemies for eight year's both asserted to the same claim that Iraq used chemical weapons on Halabja. We then have unsealed US record's revealing the types of gases used because it came from US factories, or was cultivated by the Americans. Then we have the Iraqi explination before the UN, that details why the gas was mishandled in what led to so many excess deaths.

Your not making any sense anymore, and your reasoning for why your theory is right is heading further and further down the path The Society for Historical Review would use, "None of us were there so we can never know", "We will never know for certain", "There is vaild evidence for it" when you know damn well there is not. All the evidence in the world concerning Halabja points to Iraq.

You don't need to defend an admitted guilty party.
 
superskippy said:
Your reasoning is ridiculous, and revolves around the idea "We weren't there so we don't know" does that mean you don't believe the holocaust happened? Or World War 1? Or World War 2? After all, all you have is document's, and photographs, and government admittance, and eyewitness accounts. Oh wait that is exactly what we have for Halabja.

Chemical weapons including a mix of VX were used on Halabja, thousands of Kurd's and Iranian soldiers were killed. There were not even any Iraqi Battalions in the area. The only viable target for miles were Iranian troop's and Kurdish supporters. Iran had no reason to fire on it's advancing troop. All of this does not even matter though, when the Iraqi military admit's it's guilt and gives and explination for why it happened. Iran confirms that assertion. This is confirmed along with the fact that the gas used was gas the Americans had sold Iraq. Two bitter enemies for eight year's both asserted to the same claim that Iraq used chemical weapons on Halabja. We then have unsealed US record's revealing the types of gases used because it came from US factories, or was cultivated by the Americans. Then we have the Iraqi explination before the UN, that details why the gas was mishandled in what led to so many excess deaths.

Your not making any sense anymore, and your reasoning for why your theory is right is heading further and further down the path The Society for Historical Review would use, "None of us were there so we can never know", "We will never know for certain", "There is vaild evidence for it" when you know damn well there is not. All the evidence in the world concerning Halabja points to Iraq.

You don't need to defend an admitted guilty party.
Click to expand...

Well Napoleon once said "History is a set of lies agreed upon." Anyway it doesn't matter how he ended up using it..the US violated sanctions and international law by providing him with the gas..providing a brutal dictator with a chemical weapon..hmmmmm geeeeee I wonder what he'll use it for george duhrrrrr
 
Originally Posted by GPS_Flex:
He isn’t going to answer because he knows he is full of it. The facts are hard and sound as it relates to what happened but he lives in a different world than the rest of us.

The reality is there are those among us who will stoop to any level in an attempt to slander the USA. Billo doesn’t concern himself with the facts but he likes to pretend he does.

You haven’t agued anything Billo! You’ve “conveniently” ignored every fact thrown your way and refuse to argue the issue. Any respect I once had for you has been lost. You are nothing but a two bit hack and I consider you no better than a troll now.

I like to think I’m a fair man and gave you every opportunity to make an argument but you’re acting like a troll and that’s giving you credit for having some smarts!
Click to expand...
I've provided sources on both sides. The fact that you refuse to evaluate information with an objective and open mind is your problem, not mine. Don't blame me because you can't think for yourself. I haven't ignored any facts. I see what you were saying. I also see that there are facts that support the opposite of what you believe. I also see that you have too much invested in it being Hussein who did the gassing for you to change your mind.

I fail to see how pointing out that there is evidence Hussein did not gas the Kurds, is slandering the US. Did you go to school in a long bus, or a short bus? You are too funny!

I don't give a rats ass what you think of me. Now, if you will excuse me, I have to be trolling along now.
 
Criticizing the government isn't necessarily slandering the US. It is always good to criticize it. A lot of what our government is doing is controversial, and I find it comforting that the American people assess our government critically, instead of following them blindly.
 
As I expected: Not one word by Billo to explain anything. He posted his links and that’s that. He doesn’t have to argue the issue because he posted his links. How convenient.

You are becoming a troll Billo. Oh, you still have Hermann Goering misspelled in your signature.
 
Originally Posted by GPS_Flex:
As I expected: Not one word by Billo to explain anything. He posted his links and that’s that. He doesn’t have to argue the issue because he posted his links. How convenient.

You are becoming a troll Billo. Oh, you still have Hermann Goering misspelled in your signature.
Click to expand...
Talk to the hand...
 
nkgupta80 said:
Criticizing the government isn't necessarily slandering the US
Click to expand...
I couldn’t agree more.
nkgupta80 said:
It is always good to criticize it.
Click to expand...
I couldn’t agree less.
nkgupta80 said:
A lot of what our government is doing is controversial, and I find it comforting that the American people assess our government critically, instead of following them blindly.
Click to expand...
I totally agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom