[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Hmm, I was under the impression that it was pretty well accepted that Iran was responsible, but maybe I was just duped by US gov't propaganda.

trust.no.one.

[BRussell]

I guess this Halabjah is a case where you don't which US gov't propaganda not to believe.

[Logic]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I guess this Halabjah is a case where you don't which US gov't propaganda not to believe.

[Troll]

There are still lots of strange things about Halabja for me though.

1) Why has Saddam never admitted to it?
2) Why, now that Saddam has gone, have none of the pilots that supposedly flew the Iraqi planes come forward?
3) What did Saddam hope to gain by bombing civilians in Halabja?
4) Why, if he knew they were civilians, did he bomb them for two days with three different types of weapons? Only properly equipped (Iranian) soldiers would survive a Sarin attack. Why, if you know you're targetting civilians, follow it up with VX and mustard gas? You're just wasting weapons.

Maybe the truth is somewhere between the two extremes. Maybe it was Saddam, but he thought he was targetting Iranian soldiers or maybe there actually were Iranian soldiers in Halabja at the time.

Of course, the Bush Administration's insistence that Saddam used chemical weapons against his own people is still one that grates. This particular group of "his own people" (the Kurds) sided with Iran in the war and in fact, the injured were taking to Iranian hospitals which gives you an idea of the level of control Iraq had over Halabja. It's more accurate to indict him for using chemical weapons against civilians than it is to indict him for using them against his own people.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Sounds like you're either privy to classified information, or you have no ****ing clue.

I wonder which.

-s*

If I told you, I would have to eliminate you.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Hmm, I was under the impression that it was pretty well accepted that Iran was responsible, but maybe I was just duped by US gov't propaganda.

You mean Saddam's propaganda. I have never heard this tripe about pinning it on Iran except from Saddam and his apologists. I quite clearly recall the US government stating that Saddam was responsible for gassing his own people going back at least as far as the first Gulf War. I can't comment about before then because I was living in the UK at the time of the attacks. But at the attacks, I also clearly recall that Saddam was blamed and I recall no mention of Iran. In fact, I don't recall any mention of Iran in connection to nerve gas except as a victim of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war until roughly the time the US started getting serious about dealing with Iraq. Then suddenly this "Saddam didn't do it" meme started appearing.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You mean Saddam's propaganda. I have never heard this tripe about pinning it on Iran except from Saddam and his apologists.

That's interesting because the primary source for the analysis is that CIA guy Pelletiere. Here's one of his articles.

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.

I've known about that for quite some time, probably around the time that article came out 18 months ago, and I thought it was undisputed because, as he says, he would know. But perhaps there's more complications to it, as Logic and others have pointed out. At the very least, it's not a settled case.

I quite clearly recall the US government stating that Saddam was responsible for gassing his own people going back at least as far as the first Gulf War. I can't comment about before then because I was living in the UK at the time of the attacks.

Coincidentally, I was living in the UK as a student at about the same time, if we're talking about the late 1980s. Not sure what that has to do with anything though.

But at the attacks, I also clearly recall that Saddam was blamed and I recall no mention of Iran. In fact, I don't recall any mention of Iran in connection to nerve gas except as a victim of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war until roughly the time the US started getting serious about dealing with Iraq. Then suddenly this "Saddam didn't do it" meme started appearing.

It's pretty clear that both Iraq and Iran used chemical weapons. Which side's chemicals killed which people is really the only question. It certainly doesn't make Saddam a good guy to say he didn't kill X people at Y specific time and place, but I don't want to absolve the Iranians either. Why do you?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
That's interesting because the primary source for the analysis is that CIA guy Pelletiere. Here's one of his articles.
I've known about that for quite some time, probably around the time that article came out 18 months ago, and I thought it was undisputed because, as he says, he would know.

Do Iraqis accept this version? Maybe Saddam's trial will shed some light on it.

I responded primarily to Logic's claim that the US tried to pin Halubja on Iran when in fact it was Iraq that did it. This account (if accurate) doesn't contradict that because it doesn't say that the US publicly tried to blame Iran for what Iraq did. Quite the contrary. This guy claims that the CIA thought Iran did what Iraq did. But this doesn't change the fact that the US' position all along (or at least as long as I recall them saying anything about it) has been that Iraq murdered its own civilians with nerve gas.

I find it odd that you accuse me of absolving Iran for something that Iraq did, when you began by saying that Iraq didn't do what Iraq did do. Pot kettle?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I find it odd that you accuse me of absolving Iran for something that Iraq did, when you began by saying that Iraq didn't do what Iraq did do. Pot kettle?

So Iraq did do it after all? Has that debate been conclusively resolved in the past hour or two?

In any case, one of the other issues I'm curious about is if we knew that Iran aided the 9/11 hijackers in some fashion, why didn't the gov't make that public? Perhaps that didn't come out because Iraq, and not Iran, was the target du jour? I'm quite certain that if the hijackers had passed through Iraq, that would have been in the State of the Union. It's one thing to sex up the evidence against Iraq, but what if the gov't hid evidence against a country that was really involved?

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Do Iraqis accept this version? Maybe Saddam's trial will shed some light on it.

I responded primarily to Logic's claim that the US tried to pin Halubja on Iran when in fact it was Iraq that did it.

I don't think Iraq has ever claimed responsibility for Halabja and personally I doubt Saddam's trial will shed light on the question.Saddam and anyone else that might have been involved aren't going to inculpate themselves.

Have you got any other articles or evidence of Iraq's guilt to bring to the table? What do you base your finding that Iraq was responsible for Halabja on? I mean between Locic, BRussell and I we've provided you with a number of sources suggesting the waters are rather muddier than you suggest and all of them noting that the US Government's position changed to support the human rights groups' position. Even today, I understand that the CIA's official position is that Iran was responsible for Halabja.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
I don't think Iraq has ever claimed responsibility for Halabja and personally I doubt Saddam's trial will shed light on the question.Saddam and anyone else that might have been involved aren't going to inculpate themselves.

Have you got any other articles or evidence of Iraq's guilt to bring to the table? What do you base your finding that Iraq was responsible for Halabja on? I mean between Locic, BRussell and I we've provided you with a number of sources suggesting the waters are rather muddier than you suggest and all of them noting that the US Government's position changed to support the human rights groups' position. Even today, I understand that the CIA's official position is that Iran was responsible for Halabja.

Where are you getting this stuff from? You and Logic both say that the US government maintained publicly that Iran gassed the civilians, not Iraq. Do you have anything to back that up? What about all those statements from the US government saying that Saddam used nerve gas on his own people? Those statements go back consistently through three administrations back to at least the first Bush Administration. Several Congresses have repeated them. It was part of the rationale for operation northern watch, and operation desert fox. It was part of Congress' rationale for the Iraq Liberation Act. It has been debated in the UN, and was part of several resolutions ordering Iraq to disarm. There is no hint in any of this that the US was really trying to convince people that Iran did it.

So where is your evidence?

And given that three US administrations have staked so much on their public statements that Saddam used chemical weapons on his own position, how is it that you "understand" that the CIA's "official position" is that Saddam was innocent? Not only is it highly unlikely that three administrations and several congresses would join in a tightly maintained conspiracy to say the opposite of what the CIA thought, but also how the hell do you think you know what the CIA's "official position" is? It's secret. And no, an op-ed by someone claiming to be a former CIA analyst whose book he was hawking that sank without a trace is not a CIA spokesman.

Also: take a look at this. It's a timeline. It includes early references to the US belief that Iraq used nerve gas on his people. There is no mention of any campaign or belief that Iran did it. That is the case notwithstanding the US' pragmatic tilt to Iraq at the time.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
And no, an op-ed by someone claiming to be a former CIA analyst whose book he was hawking that sank without a trace is not a CIA spokesman.

This is not just a former CIA analyst. This is THE former CIA analyst. He was in charge of political analysis during the Iran-Iraq war. His book is not an op-ed. You seem to brush him aside rather easily.

There is a lot about Halabja that smells bad ('scuse the pun). In addition to the issues I raised before, and that are raised in the various articles linked into this thread, after Halabja and investigations by the CIA into what happened there, the US and UK Governments decided to give Saddam even more chemical weapons to match Iran's chemical for chemical. Soon after the attack, the United States approved the export to Iraq of virus cultures and a billion-dollar contract to design and build a plant the Iraqis planned to use to produce mustard gas. You can get a copy of the Scott Inquiry findings (UK MOD) which confirms these facts. That behaviour would be consistent with the US believing Saddam was not resposnible for Halabja, would it not? Funny thing is that UK intelligence apparently blamed Halabja on Iraq from the start and the MOD purposefully tried to hide its funding of Iraq because it thought it would look bad.

My point is not that Pelletiere is right. It's simply that the waters are a lot muddier than you imply. When I realised that there was some doubt as to whether Saddam was responsible, I had a look around at some of the evidence. As I have already said, I came to the conclusion that on a balance Saddam was probably responsible for Halabja. I say that because I believe the Human Rights Organisations and their analyses more than I believe the US Government particularly because the US Government has taken both sides of this issue in the past. I say that because the Scott Enquiry and events which preceded it showed that the UK Government tried to hide its involvement with Iraq after Halabja which suggests to me that they were supporting Iraq for strategic reasons despite realising that he was a monster.

As prosecutor, I would be somewhat sceptical of sucessfully indicting Saddam for this. I mean, all the Defence needs to do is present that NYT Article or call Pelletiere himself as a witness and the prosecutor has a major problem. In case people missed it, Saddam denied involvement in Halabja at his arraignment. He said something like, "I read about it in the paper."

All I wanted to know is why you believe that Iraq is responsible. Clearly you believe it because the last three Administrations told you it was true.

[davesimondotcom]

You guys realize that the hyperbole of "Bush = Hitler" and such is why discussions on this board are totally worthless, right?

It's also why I left months ago and wonder why I've come back at all (oh yeah, new iPods.)

[BRussell]

Dave Simon = Hitler!

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Dave Simon = Hitler!

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Dave Simon = Hitler!

Is the a Hitler smiley?

[Logic]

Just to get a little back on track it wouldn't surprise me if the next target for US aggression would be Venezuela. That way the US could make it look like the war wasn't against Islam but terrorism and "dictatorships".

[Logic]

Or maybe it's Iran that is the goal. it wouldn't come as a huge surprise.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=5735000

[Spliffdaddy]

Iran, Iraq, Syria - whatever.

Let's kick some terrorist & insurgent ass somewhere instead of just talking endlessly about doing it.

There are plenty of nations that need their asses kicked. I say we start in alphabetical order, for lack of a better idea.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Iran, Iraq, Syria - whatever.

Let's kick some terrorist & insurgent ass somewhere instead of just talking endlessly about doing it.

There are plenty of nations that need their asses kicked. I say we start in alphabetical order, for lack of a better idea.

How about kicking your own butt first? Preach by example!!!

The world needs a model to follow...

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Iran, Iraq, Syria - whatever.

Let's kick some terrorist & insurgent ass somewhere instead of just talking endlessly about doing it.

Like in Iraq?

No terrorists until you decided to kick ass.

No insurgents, either, until you gave them reason and opportunity.

Sounds like an excellent self-justification for invasion: Bomb them, and at some point they'll defend themselves enough to give us a great excuse to keep bombing them.

-s*

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Like in Iraq?

No terrorists until you decided to kick ass.

No insurgents, either, until you gave them reason and opportunity.

Sounds like an excellent self-justification for invasion: Bomb them, and at some point they'll defend themselves enough to give us a great excuse to keep bombing them.

-s*

What do you have to say about Iran and Syria ? Plenty of terrorists there, and that my dear friends, is an undisputable fact.

[Troll]

Originally posted by PacHead:
What do you have to say about Iran and Syria ? Plenty of terrorists there, and that my dear friends, is an undisputable fact.

It's a fact that there are terrorists in Iran and Syria? I was not aware of that. Terrorists by whose definition?

In any event, so what? There are terrorists in practically every country on the planet. Lots of terrorists in the USA. Their mere presence has no consequences.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Troll:
It's a fact that there are terrorists in Iran and Syria? I was not aware of that. Terrorists by whose definition?

In any event, so what? There are terrorists in practically every country on the planet. Lots of terrorists in the USA. Their mere presence has no consequences.

By the definition of the USA, that's who. And, the difference between those countries and others is that the governments in those countries are the ones who are the terrorist supporters. And, if you claim that the govt of the USA is also terrorists, then you probably are the enemy, and no further rational discusion is neccesary.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by PacHead:
By the definition of the USA, that's who. And, the difference between those countries and others is that the governments in those countries are the ones who are the terrorist supporters. And, if you claim that the govt of the USA is also terrorists, then you probably are the enemy, and no further rational discusion is neccesary.

He did not say that.

He said that there were terrorists in the United States.

You know, like the embarrassing sham accusation of Iran having let terrorists enter the country.

So did the US.

We had them in Hamburg, too. I don't see US bombers in the sky yet (well, not since 1945).

Whatchoo gonna do? Bomb Washington, D.C., too? How have Iran and Syria deserved special treatment?

Also, it's nice that you claim the presence of terrorists in those countries "undisputable fact". As if their absence would stop Bush from invading anyway if that is part of his puppet-masters' plan.

It sure didn't in Iraq.

-s*

[badidea]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
We had them in Hamburg, too.

Two of them are still here!

I suggest some target practising over France and then flatten Hamburg - that way they can even finish what they missed in WWII!

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
We had them in Hamburg, too. I don't see US bombers in the sky yet (well, not since 1945).

Well, see the difference is you would, if your govt were the ones who were financing and supporting those terrorists. Since your govt was not, that explains why you have not seen any bombers.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Well, see the difference is you would, if your govt were the ones who were financing and supporting those terrorists. Since your govt was not, that explains why you have not seen any bombers.

Well, that's not the accusation levelled against Iran, is it?

Nor was it the case with Iraq, either.

-s*

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Well, that's not the accusation levelled against Iran, is it?

Nor was it the case with Iraq, either.

-s*

I don't believe anybody has claimed that Iran was behind 9-11, have they ? I might be mistaken. The news articles I've read stated that some of the hijackers passed through the country, that's all. If they were found to be directly behind it in anyway, then I suppose some huge MOABS would be falling from the skies over their heads pretty soon.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by PacHead:
I don't believe anybody has claimed that Iran was behind 9-11, have they ? I might be mistaken. The news articles I've read stated that some of the hijackers passed through the country, that's all. If they were found to be directly behind it in anyway, then I suppose some huge MOABS would be falling from the skies over their heads pretty soon.

Well, we've just seen the first public attempt by your administration to link Iran and 9/11. It is baseless and absurd, but there it is.

Watch closely for the next "accusation", due within the next few weeks, timed to conveniently publicly eclipse the meek admittance that the current claims are absurd. What will stick in the public mind is the association "Iran-9/11".

The rhetoric against Iraq started much the same way, despite continual right-wing claims that it wasn't happening.

You are proof of its effectiveness.

-s*

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Well, we've just seen the first public attempt by your administration to link Iran and 9/11. It is baseless and absurd, but there it is.

Watch closely for the next "accusation", due within the next few weeks, timed to conveniently publicly eclipse the meek admittance that the current claims are absurd. What will stick in the public mind is the association "Iran-9/11".

The rhetoric against Iraq started much the same way, despite continual right-wing claims that it wasn't happening.

You are proof of its effectiveness.

-s*

No, not at all. You have not seen me make any case that Iran was behind 9-11, just because of the evidence that some of the hijackers passed through their borders.

However, nothing surprises me, and there might very well be evidence that they were behind it. They are a terrorist state afterall. If this evidence were to show up, then yes, you will see me making a case for war, if there is such evidence. I am sure that in the case of Iran, if anything were to happen, any evidence would have to be rock solid, so nobody will be complaining as has been the case with Iraq.

As for Iraq, that was a completely different situation, and I was and am still for what we did there. Saddam alone was reason enough. I was for invading iraq years ago. WMD or no WMD or whatever has been found.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by PacHead:
By the definition of the USA, that's who. And, the difference between those countries and others is that the governments in those countries are the ones who are the terrorist supporters. And, if you claim that the govt of the USA is also terrorists, then you probably are the enemy, and no further rational discusion is neccesary.

Here, here, I'm the enemy, as I'm claiming that the US is the biggest terrorist ever, that degrades every other terrorist-group on earth to mere pre-school-pupils.

Examples of US-terrorism are abundant: Massacres, assassinations and coups in south-america and the middle-east for example. Cambodia-bombardment-campaign by the US with over 600,000 killed civilians, Vietnam-war with over a million killed Vietcongs, firebombings of japanese towns as well as the atom-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

There is much more but like you said rational discussion is not possible about that topic, as everything the US does is not terrorism per definition, but more like freedom-spreading, or peace-keeping.

Taliesin

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Here, here, I'm the enemy, as I'm claiming that the US is the biggest terrorist ever, that degrades every other terrorist-group on earth to mere pre-school-pupils.

Examples of US-terrorism are abundant: Massacres, assassinations and coups in south-america and the middle-east for example. Cambodia-bombardment-campaign by the US with over 600,000 killed civilians, Vietnam-war with over a million killed Vietcongs, firebombings of japanese towns as well as the atom-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

There is much more but like you said rational discussion is not possible about that topic, as everything the US does is not terrorism per definition, but more like freedom-spreading, or peace-keeping.

Taliesin

Yes, WWII lol. We sure were the bad guys back then even.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Yes, WWII lol. We sure were the bad guys back then even.

I was not aware that the bombardments in Cambodia, Vietnam and the CIA and US-paramilitary-operations in south-america and the middle-east were part of worldwar2, my fault.

Besides even in ww2 the US was as bad as it is today. As far as I remember, the deliberate targeting of civilians even in a war is a terroristic act.

Taliesin

[Troll]

Originally posted by PacHead:
They are a terrorist state afterall.

I see you've changed your argument since I last posted. Before my previous post, you thought the mere presence of terrorists in a state was a reason to invade them. Now you say that if a state supports terrorists then that is a valid reason to invade. That's closer to reality than your previous statement though not the whole story either. Hint: there are only two exceptions to the prohibition on the use of force and neither of them is supports terrorism.

The bizarre thing though is that you jump straight to a factual finding that Iran is a terrorist state. My first thought is what does that make Saudi Arabia! But let's put that aside. If Iran is indeed a supporter of terrorism in the United States, then the US wouldn't need any further justification to act in self defense and invade Iran. In fact, not invading Iran would be a failure by the Bush Administration to keep America safe.

So which is it? Is Iran not a terrorist state, is being a terrorist state not a reason to be invaded or is George Bush not doing his job? Because the statements you've made can't all be true. They're incompatible with one other.

[Spliffdaddy]

Ya know, it really doesn't matter what we think about it.

Scary, huh?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Ya know, it really doesn't matter what we think about it.

Scary, huh?

sure. All terrorists want the enemy to feel "scared". Congratulations.