Hussein Did Not Gas Kurds!

[GPS_Flex]

Talk to the hand...

How unexpected Billo. How convenient…
How convenient!
How convenient!
How convenient!

Hmmm, where have I heard that (how convenient) before?

The “talk to the hand” rebuttal has to be the best of all time. You must have done hours of research to come up with that one Billo.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by GPS_Flex:
You are becoming a troll Billo. Oh, you still have Hermann Goering misspelled in your signature.

As long as you have a problem with it, it's going to stay mis-spelled!

 

[Billo_Really]

The hypocritical John Hancock of GPS_Flex:
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
John F. Kennedy

Why have this, when you don't do this?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by nkgupta80:
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

Thank you!

 

[cnredd]

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.

Since it isn't "necessarily slandering", that leaves the door open for scenarios where it IS slandering....I'd like to see some of your examples, please.

I could give out a few thousand examples(See any thread written by SMIRKnCHIMP or Billo Really)...I've seen other examples that include the word "Nazi"...but the ones who claim these things will hide behind the First Amendment.

So if that's true, than the First Amendment condones criticizing AND slandering.

But...I contend that "rights" come with "responsibilities". It is OK to shoot a gun in certain circumstances, but not all...and they are well defined.

Equally, it is OK to shoot your mouth off in certain circumstances, but not all...the problem is that they are NOT well-defined.

And we all know that "shotting one's mouth off" is much more damaging than "shooting a gun".

 

[superskippy]

Wake up. Your dreaming too much. All these links say your confused.

http://www.truthaboutwar.org/1brutal.shtml

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

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2003/0201-GasKurds.html

http://www.giwersworld.org/911/iraq-war.phtml

http://www.albasrah.net/maqalat/english/0105/Halabcha_090105.htm

While the United States never supplied full-fledged chemical weapons to Iraq, it did provide satelite photographs and battlefield intelligence to Iraq which it knew was to be used in "calibrating" Iraqi chemical weapons attacks against Iran (Bob Woodward, "CIA Aiding Iraq in Gulf War; Target Data From U.S. Satellites Supplied for Nearly 2 Years" Washington Post December 15 1986.) Furthermore, the US provided "civilian" helicopters, ostensibly for crop spraying, which intelligence sources believe were used to deploy the chemical weapons in Halabja

Along with the fact that the Al-Haddad Enterprises (Nashville, Tennessee) had shipped 60 tons of DMMP to Iraq. DMMP (dimethyl methylphosphonate) is a nerve gas precursor.

There are plenty of clues that hint at a more intense American involvment in the Iraqi Chemical Program.

But the uncontested fact is that Saddam used Chemical Weapons at Halabja.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by superskippy:
But the uncontested fact is that Saddam used Chemical Weapons at Halabja.

In response to the Iranians use of "...Chemical Weapons...". Kurds were just caught in the cross-fire.

 

[Tetracide]

In response to the Iranians use of "...Chemical Weapons...". Kurds were just caught in the cross-fire.

Even if that is true (which it is not), it does not justify or belittle the fact that is happened and Saddam allowed it to happen.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by cnredd:
Since it isn't "necessarily slandering", that leaves the door open for scenarios where it IS slandering....I'd like to see some of your examples, please.

I could give out a few thousand examples(See any thread written by SMIRKnCHIMP or Billo Really)...I've seen other examples that include the word "Nazi"...but the ones who claim these things will hide behind the First Amendment.

Censorship is used by those that do not have a good arguement with which to rebut. Ad hominum attacks is done for the same reason. I fail to see how the Constitutional right to "redress of greviences", can be considered slander without satisfying the following:

Apparent reversal of benefit of the doubt
In most legal systems the courts give the benefit of the doubt to the person who is being tried. Depending on the applicable burden of proof, he or she is presumed to be innocent until the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, or to the balance of probabilities, that this is not the case.

Once the offended party meets the burden of proof that the publisher made a defamatory statement, the untruth of that statement is presumed, so that the burden of proving it was true and/or in the public interest falls onto the publisher of the statement.

This prevents the victim from being essentially "tried" in the media or anywhere else ...[like Fox News]... outside a legal system. The victim remains innocent and the burden of proof properly is shifted to the publisher of the statement (the accuser). Without this protection, the victim of a defamatory statement would have to prove his innocence in order to prevail. With this protection, the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" partially is extended to anyone accused outside the legal system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Tetracide:
Even if that is true (which it is not), it does not justify or belittle the fact that is happened and Saddam allowed it to happen.

So now he is responsible for Iranian atrocities as well? I hate Hussein. But I hate irrational thinking much more.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Censorship is used by those that do not have a good arguement with which to rebut. Ad hominum attacks is done for the same reason. I fail to see how the Constitutional right to "redress of greviences", can be considered slander without satisfying the following:

Apparent reversal of benefit of the doubt
In most legal systems the courts give the benefit of the doubt to the person who is being tried. Depending on the applicable burden of proof, he or she is presumed to be innocent until the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, or to the balance of probabilities, that this is not the case.

Once the offended party meets the burden of proof that the publisher made a defamatory statement, the untruth of that statement is presumed, so that the burden of proving it was true and/or in the public interest falls onto the publisher of the statement.

This prevents the victim from being essentially "tried" in the media or anywhere else ...[like Fox News]... outside a legal system. The victim remains innocent and the burden of proof properly is shifted to the publisher of the statement (the accuser). Without this protection, the victim of a defamatory statement would have to prove his innocence in order to prevail. With this protection, the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" partially is extended to anyone accused outside the legal system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

Hmmm. Well saying that Bush lied is a slander if Bush honestly believed in his own mind that what he was saying was true...which is impossible to prove.

 

[Tetracide]

So now he is responsible for Iranian atrocities as well? I hate Hussein. But I hate irrational thinking much more.

Iran did not gas the Kurds. Saddam did to suppress an uprising. It is already in the history books, you cannot not debunk it as proven by research and logic provided by your own sources, not including the others that I and others have provided.

 

[superskippy]

Halabja was not the only time Iraq used chemical weapons on the Kurd's it is the most publicised.

During the Al-Anfal genocidal campaign Halabja was one of the town's attacked, thousands were killed under the order's of Chemical Ali, it was an express extension of the Al-Anfal Campaign.

There are over 39 documented cases of chemical weapon attacks on Kurdish villages through out the Al-Anfal campaign. It was a genocidal campaign that mixed mass slaughter with mass extermination through chemical and gas attacks. It was genocide and mass murder, I can say without compunction that it was the same principle as the Holocaust.

It was intentional at Halabja, if it was not they could have stopped the Gas attacks on the 2nd day, or even the 3rd day. They did not for three day's the town was bombarded with chemical weapons by the Iraqi military killing an estimated 5,000.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Tetracide
Iran did not gas the Kurds. Saddam did to suppress an uprising. It is already in the history books, you cannot not debunk it as proven by research and logic provided by your own sources, not including the others that I and others have provided.

A bold statement, that says it all.

Job well done!

Originally posted by superskippy
There are over 39 documented cases of chemical weapon attacks on Kurdish villages through out the Al-Anfal campaign. It was a genocidal campaign that mixed mass slaughter with mass extermination through chemical and gas attacks. It was genocide and mass murder, I can say without compunction that it was the same principle as the Holocaust.

It was intentional at Halabja, if it was not they could have stopped the Gas attacks on the 2nd day, or even the 3rd day. They did not for three day's the town was bombarded with chemical weapons by the Iraqi military killing an estimated 5,000.

It is interesting that you don't provide any of the 39 documented cases to backup your claim.

 

[Tetracide]

A bold statement, that says it all.

Job well done!

It is interesting that you don't provide any of the 39 documented cases to backup your claim.

If you think pictures and tacky comments are going to make you look like you won this debate, you are stubbornly mistaken.

You have lost, proven by the lack of substance you have in your posts. Thanks for playing.
:2wave:

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Tetracide
If you think pictures and tacky comments are going to make you look like you won this debate, you are stubbornly mistaken.

You have lost, proven by the lack of substance you have in your posts. Thanks for playing.

No, thank you!

 

[superskippy]

You want some of the documented cases?

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1991/IRAQ913.htm#5

Human Right's Watch goes into depth on a few of the cases and the method's behind them.

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/warning.htm

Ah but anything the US government says can't be true right?
:roll:

From Birjinni, to Halabja, to Zawita, to Dohuk. These are but a few of the 40.

Why do you deny history?

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

You want some of the documented cases?

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1991/IRAQ913.htm#5

Human Right's Watch goes into depth on a few of the cases and the method's behind them.

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/warning.htm

Ah but anything the US government says can't be true right?
:roll:

From Birjinni, to Halabja, to Zawita, to Dohuk. These are but a few of the 40.

Why do you deny history?

Again..who provided them with the gas amd with anthrax? The United States.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by superskippy
You want some of the documented cases?

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/warning.htm

Thank you for providing your sources. Here's a little excerpt from that source:

During 2001 and 2002, Baghdad has sought to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes that most intelligence experts believe are intended as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium.

On this subject I would venture a guess that nuclear physicists are more of an authority on the subject of the "tubes" than intelligent experts are. And here's what they say about the CIA's assessment:

To support its assertions about the aluminum tubes, the CIA made a series of arguments that the nation's leading centrifuge physicists described repeatedly as technically garbled, improbable or unambiguously false, the report said.

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/10050

Keep in mind, when you read this, that you need to consider the source. I thought yours was a little closer to Bush dogma than scientific objectivity. That's my opinion. However, for the record, your source is as equally as good as mine.

I'm sure if my dad and your dad fought, it would be a draw!

 

[superskippy]

Let me ask you straight up Billo. Do you deny that Iraq used chemical weapons multiple time's on the Kurds? Or do you have a varient view?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by superskippy
Let me ask you straight up Billo. Do you deny that Iraq used chemical weapons multiple time's on the Kurds? Or do you have a varient view?

No, I do not deny that.

 

[superskippy]

Not to be rude than what exactly are we still debating? In all honesty.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by superskippy
Not to be rude than what exactly are we still debating? In all honesty.

The notion that sources which state the opposite, are not outragous and ridiculous. That there is evidence that shows Hussein was not the only one using chemical weapons in that area at that time. Whether you agree with the evidence or not, there is enough out there to suggest that it is not as obvious as people are led to believe.

Quite frankly, this "Hussein is a bad guy" arguement for a regime change, is really a not a valid one when you consider that we new about him 20 years ago when he was our ally. We didn't do anything then. But it was in our interests this time, to annex their economy and privatize it, with company's that answer only to the Bush government. Not the Iraqi government.

 

[GPS_Flex]

Is that the point you were making Billo?:spin:

I’m not sure why but I thought you were trying to argue that Saddam didn’t gas the Kurds. Silly me! :screwy

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by GPS_Flex:
Is that the point you were making Billo?

I’m not sure why but I thought you were trying to argue that Saddam didn’t gas the Kurds. Silly me!

I think you got a little too much ground water on the brain. Maybe you should take some core samples and see if you can't get your facts straight enough to prevent liqua-fiction.