Who Really Gassed the Kurds?

[Berzerker]

I'm watching Hannity and Colmes and they have a CIA analyst who claims the DIA and CIA concluded the '88 gas attack was from the Iranians, not the Iraqis. A town in northern Iraq became a battleground between the Iraqis and Iranians and both sides were using gas on each other, but the pictures of the Kurds revealed clues about which side's gas did the killing. The gas used apparently was cyanide based, which was the gas being used by the Iranians, not the Iraqis. Regardless of which side's gas did the damage, why aren't we being told this incident occured during a battle in which both sides were using gas? Why are we constantly told Saddam gassed his "own people"? I don't like this scumbag dictator in Iraq any more than the Mullahs in Iran, but I don't like being lied to either. I didn't like it when we were lied to by the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter who claimed Iraqi soldiers were pulling babies out of incubators and tossed on the ground, and I didn't like the fact Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Cal) told us we didn't need to know who she really was when she testified before Congress because her identity wasn't relevant.

[Boris Godunov]

Oy vey, not this **** again! I hear lord of the mark coming...

[Berzerker]

Oops, was this already debated ad nauseum? I just saw the guy on H&C and he seemed to know his stuff. Steven Pelletiere is his name I think, and he's not the first person making this argument. Jude Wanniski said the same thing a while back on the Fox News channel.
But this Pelletiere guy has the credentials, he was the CIA's chief analyst on Iraq during the perion in question and cites studies by the intelligence community.

[Boris Godunov]

Someone posted the NYT article be Pelletiere, and lord of the mark went to town on it with pretty convincing ease that tore the man apart. I think Gatekeeper started the thread (not sure though).

[Berzerker]

Yeah, I just saw the thread, LotM started it. But I'm not sure how LotM did anything to refute the claimed sources for this guy's information or what he is saying about the attack. He claimed the info comes from government analyses of the battle and knowledge of the chemicals being used by both sides.

Is it possible that the US government reached certain conclusions about the gas attack exonerating "our friend" Saddam at the time and only changed the conclusion when Saddam became our enemy? Wouldn't surprise me if we wanted to blame the Iranians originally only to blame Saddam for the gas attack after he invaded Kuwait.

[Berzerker]

In short, what we do seem to know is this incident occured during a battle between the Iranians and Iraqis in a town where both sides were using gas. So it's still dis-ingenuous to claim Saddam gassed his own people as if he just woke up one day and decided to gas the Kurds.

[Sirotnikov]

Berzerker - if you check the thread, you'll notice that he used plenty of sources to dispute the claim, including quotes by Iraqi officials, threatening the kurds to repeat the move.

Please don't be as silly, as many "the government is creating a conspiracy behind our backs" chomskeys are.

[Boris Godunov]

Actually, it was this thread by GePap:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...1&pagenumber=1

[Velociryx]

Flatulent camels done it.

-=Vel=-

[Ramo]

It's unlikely that Saddam hadn't gassed the Kurds. IIRC, HRW documented the situation fairly well.

I find it odd, however, that everyone has been emphasizing the "his own people" part as if it makes any difference. Saddam was crushing a Kurdish revolt. Is using chemical weapons any more or less justified (relative to conventional arms) in this circumstance than, say, during his invasion of Kuwait or when he fought in Iran?

[Berzerker]

Sirotnikov -

Berzerker - if you check the thread, you'll notice that he used plenty of sources to dispute the claim, including quotes by Iraqi officials, threatening the kurds to repeat the move.

Please don't be as silly, as many "the government is creating a conspiracy behind our backs" chomskeys are.

I saw no refutation. Are you talking about a different thread? I hardly consider Jude Wanniske a follower of Chomsky. Either the government analysis of the battle supports the conclusion that Saddam gassed the Kurds or it does not. I've seen two people now claim this analysis refutes the claim. In a battle between two warring armies both using gas, is it not dis-ingenuous to claim one side - the current bogeyman - intentionally gassed Kurds? That's like accusing the Germans and French of intentionally gassing civilians who were killed in gas attacks during the trench warfare of WWI.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I find it odd, however, that everyone has been emphasizing the "his own people" part as if it makes any difference. Saddam was crushing a Kurdish revolt. Is using chemical weapons any more or less justified (relative to conventional arms) in this circumstance than, say, during his invasion of Kuwait or when he fought in Iran?

No, but it tugs at the emotional heartstrings more. It is the 'savage barbarian' ploy.

I mean, undoubtably he did gas the Kurds (on many different occasions than in the Iranian war), but since they are in his country, he seems more 'dicatatorial'.

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

It's unlikely that Saddam hadn't gassed the Kurds. IIRC, HRW documented the situation fairly well.

I'm not sure how HRW would know. Obviously people died from a gas attack, but both sides were using gas. The Kurds were at war with Saddam and were ~allied with Iran, who would the Kurds blame? Their enemy or their allies? I understand HRW was asking Kurds who launched the gas attack, but according to this Steven Pelletiere, the analysis shows a cyanide based gas was used - a gas used by Iran. I don't care which side used the gas, but I do get tired of lies, manipulation and hypocrisy. I don't recall the GOP complaining about what Saddam did during the war with Iran back then...

Nevertheless, those Iraqis who survive this war will be quite happy to be rid of Saddam.

[Eli]

Who Really Gassed the Kurds?

Israel, of course.

[Ramo]

The Kurds were at war with Saddam and were ~allied with Iran, who would the Kurds blame?

Well, they certainly were being massacred by Iraqis and Iranians alike. I find it unlikely that the Kurds wouldn't truthfully say who killed their loved ones in this particular circumstance given that so many atrocities had been attributed to Iran by them. Perhaps if HRW talked to only representatives of the leadership of certain Kurdish factions, but they didn't do that.

I don't recall the GOP complaining about what Saddam did during the war with Iran back then...

True. A few Congressmen called for an end to military aid to Iraq after the Kurds were gassed, but both Ronnie and Bush Sr strongly opposed them.

It's amazing how much we've oscillated between mildly supporting the Kurdish cause when it's proved advantageous to us, only to sell them out the next moment. And I find it amazing that people believe we won't sell the Kurds (and for that matter, the Shia) out again after Gulf War II.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Flatulent camels done it.

-=Vel=-

agreed!

[Kramerman]

It's amazing how much we've oscillated between mildly supporting the Kurdish cause when it's proved advantageous to us, only to sell them out the next moment. And I find it amazing that people believe we won't sell the Kurds (and for that matter, the Shia) out again after Gulf War II.

Thats politics, i.e. law of the jungle. Do what you have to in order to get the advantage... the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and if my enemy becomes my friend, then my former-enemy's enemy who was formerly my friend is now my enemy.

Kman

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

And I find it amazing that people believe we won't sell the Kurds (and for that matter, the Shia) out again after Gulf War II.

I doubt it would happen again, Bush won't go through all this only to stop short of an actual regime change. But given how many times we've screwed them, I certainly wouldn't blame them for their anger and skepticism towards us. We'll see how these recent converts to Kurdish rights and autonomy react when the regime change doesn't give the Kurds what they want.

[Ramo]

No, I believe there'll be a regime change. It's hard to imagine that not happening. But that doesn't mean we won't sell the Kurds out. Too much is at stake for the gov't as far as pro-Turkish (and anti-Iranian) interests go what with the "war on terror," etc.

Thats politics, i.e. law of the jungle.

No, that's supporting the authority of a state (in particular, ours) over the lives and liberties of millions of people.

[uh Clem]

Berzerker, stop watching Hannity & Colmes. Hannity's a liar and Colmes is utterly pathetic. Switch to something more enlightening for that hour, like, oh I don't know, the Cartoon Network or something like that.

[Sava]

Regardless of who gassed who, all of those weapons were "Made in the USA"...










God Bless America!

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Flatulent camels done it.

-=Vel=-

No, it was Professor Plum in the Library with a Candle-Stick!

[Sava]

Originally posted by uh Clem
Berzerker, stop watching Hannity & Colmes. Hannity's a liar and Colmes is utterly pathetic. Switch to something more enlightening for that hour, like, oh I don't know, the Cartoon Network or something like that.

Everything on FoxNews is a crock for that matter.

Cartoon Network Samuria Jack is my favorite.

[Evil Knevil]

Who wanted to gas the Kurds originally?

We did!
In the 1920's we wished to gas rebellious "Kurds and other tribesmen" but only stopped when technology wasn't advanced enough for airel gas bombs. This was when Iraq was a British protectorate.

The secretary of State for war, SIR LAMING WORTHINGTON-EVANS:
If the Arab population realised that the peaceful control of Mesopotamia ultimately depends on our intention of bombing women and children, I’m very doubtful if we shall gain that acquiescence of the fathers and husbands of Mesopotamia to which the Secretary of State for the Colonies looks forward

[lord of the mark]

i beleive there is confusion becuase htere were 2 threads on this issue, one by GEpap and one by me.


The study that Peletiere cites was made by US intel shortly after the gassing. It apparently was done using PHOTOS of the dead bodies. the judgement was made that the positions of the bodies, the blue lip etc were more consistent with cyanide gas used by Iran than with Mustard gas used by iraq. case closed.

Interviews with Kurds indicate that the gassing was closely related to Iraqi actions in the town (halabja) Documents and tapes from the Iraqi military indicate Iraqi planning and gloating. The blue lips seem to be explained by the fact that Iraq used nerve agents capable of creating that effect. I will not add the cites here, they are on the other 2 threads.

What I have said does not unambigously add to the case for war on Iraq. While Iraqs actions are part of the case for war, part of the case against includes US support for the Iraqi regime - and the study Pelletiere cites seems to have been part of that - IE an attempt by US intell to blame Iran rather than Iraq for political reasons.

I am ashamed my country participated in such a cover-up. However it is important now that the truth be told, whether we go to war on Iraq or not.

The other threads also have more about Pelletiere personally. He turns out not to be an unbiased source.

[chequita guevara]

There was more than one city which was hit by gas. It's perfectly feasable that in one city (Halabja) it was perpetrated by the Iraqis, while in another (fergit the name) it was purpitrated by the Iranians.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo
It's unlikely that Saddam hadn't gassed the Kurds. IIRC, HRW documented the situation fairly well.

I find it odd, however, that everyone has been emphasizing the "his own people" part as if it makes any difference. Saddam was crushing a Kurdish revolt. Is using chemical weapons any more or less justified (relative to conventional arms) in this circumstance than, say, during his invasion of Kuwait or when he fought in Iran?

Ramo, you raise a good point. I think the difference is killing civilians with WoMD vs. killing soldiers.

I think Saddam was able to hold off the Iranians because he used WoMD on them. It is interesting, though, that he never loaded his SCUDS with gas or bio when he landed them on Teheran.

Why?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ramo -

I doubt it would happen again, Bush won't go through all this only to stop short of an actual regime change. But given how many times we've screwed them, I certainly wouldn't blame them for their anger and skepticism towards us. We'll see how these recent converts to Kurdish rights and autonomy react when the regime change doesn't give the Kurds what they want.

They'll have to screw them, Turkey would never accept any sort of autonomy for the Kurds, and America needs their support. The choice will be screw the Kurds or screw Turkey. Which one do you think they'll choose?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
It is interesting, though, that he never loaded his SCUDS with gas or bio when he landed them on Teheran.

Why?

Maybe we told him that we'd be unable to continue supporting him if he did that. It's one thing to use chem weapons in battle and another to use them on defenseless civilians. Do we care that the Iraqis and Iranians gassed each other's troops? Not really. We all care about the Kurdish civilians who got hit. If he dropped them in a major urban center, even one that was hated by the American people, I think that might have been too much, even for us.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Maybe we told him that we'd be unable to continue supporting him if he did that. It's one thing to use chem weapons in battle and another to use them on defenseless civilians. Do we care that the Iraqis and Iranians gassed each other's troops? Not really. We all care about the Kurdish civilians who got hit. If he dropped them in a major urban center, even one that was hated by the American people, I think that might have been too much, even for us.

Agreed.