Iraqi Election....

OK, after MANY hours of searching, I've come across a single source, oblique reference Iran having and possibly using, cyanide gas.

It is NOT, however, from a Department of Defense report (I'm still waiting for a link or focal source, Psycho).

The one reference:

"The Halabja atrocity remains murky. The CIA's former Iraq desk chief claims Kurds who died at Halabja were killed by cyanide gas, not nerve gas, as is generally believed.

At the time, Iraq and Iran were locked in the ferocious last battles of their eight-year war. Halabja was caught between the two armies that were exchanging salvos of regular and chemical munitions. Only Iran had cyanide gas. If the CIA official is correct, the Kurds were accidentally killed by Iran, not Iraq."

That comes from this article: http://www.rense.com/general61/bloodied.htm

Notice that it's a single person who is claiming this, and it's a desk chief, NOT a field agent. There's absolutely no indication of where this information came from, what scientific basis there is for claiming this, etc.

As such, it is one individual's theory, and it is by no stretch of the imagination accepted widely.

As for Iran's chemical weapons, prior to 1979 the United States supplied Iran with chemical weapons under the terms of its military treaties with that nation.

"They got their start with help from the Soviets."

Once again, NO, they did not. The Soviet Union and Iran were not on very good speaking terms post 1982 because of the heavy level of military support that the Soviets were giving Iraq.

Please note also that the other two most likely vectors for Iranian chemical weapons were China and China's satellite, North Korea, neither of which had very close ties militarily or economically with the Soviet Union at that time.


No, what's laughable are the claims that you're making. You've provided absolutely no basis for them other than your own "well if I say it, it must be fine even though I can't (or won't) provide any sort of supporting data."

Your claims simply do not mesh with known facts.
 
Mike, that was the only source you could find? Rense? :confused: Amazing. Here, this took me about two minutes of searching:

"Iran overran the village and its small Iraqi garrison on 15 March 1988. The gassing took place on 16 March and onwards; who is then responsible for the deaths - Iran or Iraq - and how large was the death toll knowing the Iranian army was in Halabja but never reported any deaths by chemicals?

The best evidence to answer this is a 1990 report by the Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army War College. It concluded that Iran, not Iraq, was the culprit in Halabja.

"The Iraqi army allegedly used chemical weapons in "40 separate attacks on Kurdish targets" during a campaign that HRW labels as genocide

While the War College report acknowledges that Iraq used mustard gas during the Halabja hostilities, it notes that mustard gas is an incapacitating, rather than a killing agent, with a fatality rate of only 2%, so that it could not have killed the hundreds of known dead, much less the thousands of dead claimed by Human Rights Watch.

According to the War College reconstruction of events, Iran struck first taking control of the village. The Iraqis counter-attacked using mustard gas. The Iranians then attacked again, this time using a "blood agent" - cyanogens chloride or hydrogen cyanide - and re-took the town, which Iran then held for several months.

Having control of the village and its grisly dead, Iran blamed the gas deaths on the Iraqis, and the allegations of Iraqi genocide took root via a credulous international press and, a little later, cynical promotion of the allegations for political purposes by the US state department and Senate.

Stephen Pelletiere, who was the CIA's senior political analyst on Iraq throughout the Iran-Iraq war, closely studied evidences of "genocide in Halabja" has described his group's findings:

"The great majority of the victims seen by reporters and other observers who attended the scene were blue in their extremities. That means that they were killed by a blood agent, probably either cyanogens chloride or hydrogen cyanide. Iraq never used and lacked any capacity to produce these chemicals. But the Iranians did deploy them. Therefore the Iranians killed the Kurds."

Pelletiere's report also said that international relief organisations that examined the Kurdish refugees in Turkey failed to discover any gassing victims.

After 15 years of support to the allegations of HRW, the CIA finally admitted in its report published in October 2003 that only mustard gas and a nerve agent was used by Iraq.

The CIA now seems to be fully supporting the US Army War College report of April 1990, as a cyanide-based blood agent that Iraq never had, and not mustard gas or a nerve agent, killed the Kurds who died at Halabja and which concludes that the Iranians perpetrated that attack as a media war tactic.

Despite the doubt cast by many professionals as well as the CIA's recent report, and after years of public relations propaganda made for the Kurdish leaderships by the assistance and support of the Israeli Mossad, the issue of genocide has been marketed to the international community."
Click to expand...

http://www.findthelinks.com/_Political/00000029.htm
 
Signatories to international law and treaties have agreed, in a broad way, on what is acceptable treatment of their own people and their neighbors.
Click to expand...

And so you argue that because of our superpower status we're the only ones who are able to enforce international law. I don't know why I'm supposed to care about U.N. international law. Could you explain that one to me?
 
Just to set the stage on that "article"
By Mohammed al-Obaidi
Click to expand...

key Kurdish leaders aided by the CIA and the Israeli Mossad

worked closely with the American Zionist lobby in the US

an organisation founded with the financial help and supervision of the Zionist Mike Amitay.
Click to expand...

I tend to discount sources that throw "Zionist" out 3 times in the first 3 paragraphs,

Here's one from Kurds who dispute him and his chosen Western Expert. Oh, wait, you mean there's two opposing propaganda pieces and so the truth might still be in play? And maybe some former government guy might be grinding an axe? :eek:

Kurdistan Observer article
 
Ah yes, the famous book written by Stephen Pelletiere et al and published by the Army War College. Here's a bit of rebuttal for you:

http://middleeastreference.org.uk/halabja.html

I mention the authors’ academic background only in order to point out that none of them (to my knowledge) are trained in chemistry or medical diagnostics.

<snip>

Indeed, it only makes brief mention of Halabja, and then only assertively (no evidence is offered).
"In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing a great many deaths. Photographs of the Kurdish victims were widely disseminated in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack, even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemicals in this operation, and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds."

That’s it, the basis of much of the claims that have been circulating among campaigners for the last few years.

<snip>

So why did these authors take this line? Well, the focus of their study is not on Halabja, human rights in Iraq or international welfare, but is indicated by the title of the study, "US security in the Middle East". Straight after making their claim on Halabja, the authors detail what they mean by "US security in the Middle East":

As a result of the outcome of the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq is now the most powerful state in the Persian Gulf, an area in which we have vital interests. To maintain an uninterrupted flow of oil from the Gulf to the West, we need to develop good working relations with all of the Gulf states, and particularly with Iraq, the strongest." (p.53)
Click to expand...


<snip>

The problems with this argument are numerous. Most obviously, why on earth would Iran bomb a town so extensively whose inhabitants were among the core supporters of their ally, the PUK? The argument of "fog of war" fails to hold, even if the Iranian air force had thought that Iraqi troops were still present in Halabja.

Even that seems unlikely: the PUK captured Halabja on 15 March 1988. They were accompanied by members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard who coordinated PUK actions. The town was fully under PUK/Iranian control 4 hours after they entered the town. The eyewitness testimony collected by Physicians for Human Rights and by British filmmaker Gwynne Roberts, who was in Halabja and captured the attack and aftermath on film, confirms this: the PUK controlled all exits to the town, and were preventing civilians from leaving as they thought that the Iraqis would not spread their artillery bombardment of surrounding areas to the centre of the town if it was fully inhabited (human shields). I find it hard to believe that with Iranian troops in the town for 36 hours before the chemical weapons attacks, the field commanders still thought that Iraqi forces were still in possession of the town.

The actual attack began at nightfall on the 16th, when 8 aircraft dropped chemical bombs; they were followed throughout the night by 14 aircraft sorties, with 7 to 8 planes in each group. Intermittent bombardment continued until the 18th (some reports say the morning of the 19th). If the Johnson et al argument is to be believed, Iranians were bombing their own elite units and key supporters for 48 hours, even though news reports were already circulating about the defeat of Iraqi troops on the 15th.

Regarding the nature of the CWs used - the crucial element in Johnson’s analysis - the most detail survey of the medical effects was done by Professor Christine Gosden, a medical geneticist from Liverpool Uni, who has (I think) done the only survey into the long-term effects of the CW attack (obvious access problems until recently). From looking at the health problems of those who were victims of the attacks on Halabja, her results show that mustard gas, sarin, tabun and VX were used in the attack.

Prior UN investigations had catalogued Iraqi use of Tabun and mustard gas from 1983, but ongoing into the later stages of the war (see in particular the specialist report of the UN Sec-Gen of 26/3/84, and the UN expert commission report on use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war doc no. S/18852 of 1988). Iraqi use of sarin and VX has been widely asserted (the former, by the Physicians for Human Rights in soil sampling from Birjinni: http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical.html). So it seems quite clear that all the chemical agents that Gosden traces the use of at Halabja had been used previously by Iraq.


By contrast, I have seen no reliable analysis of Iranian use of either Tabun or Hydrogen Cyanide - Dr Johnson doesn’t tell us that he has any such evidence either: all he says is that there was no previous use of cyanide from the Iraqi side, and infers from this that it must have been the Iranians. By contrast, the presence of cyanide which Dr Johnson claims (but is still disputed; the claim stems primarily from Iranian autopsies on victims I believe, but are not independently confirmed) is perfectly explicable in terms of Iraqi use of Tabun.

<Snippety-Snip-Snip-Snip>
Click to expand...
 
Quote:
Signatories to international law and treaties have agreed, in a broad way, on what is acceptable treatment of their own people and their neighbors.
Click to expand...

And so you argue that because of our superpower status we're the only ones who are able to enforce international law. I don't know why I'm supposed to care about U.N. international law. Could you explain that one to me?
Click to expand...

Did I say "only ones"? :confused: Oh, wait I didn't say anything you just wrote.

You have an unfortunate habit of putting words in people's mouths or inserting your own interpretation of what they say in order to provide "evidence" to support your take on things.

I'm not sure how "Are we currently uniquely placed in history to actually live up to those values upon which we were founded and to help enforce those agreements we helped bring into being?" equals "only ones who are able to enforce"?

The fact is, "no entangling alliances" wishful thinking aside, our government has used its enumerated powers to enter into treaties and agreements. We have been, for ethical and moral and, yes, practical reasons, the driving source of many of those treaties because they have provided international mechanisms that, at root, are designed to help promote and extend those natural rights (not Christian, not necessarily "Western") we enjoy to the rest of the world. Who, in the main, seems to like them, if not the accompanying culture.

Since we have seen, against their and their member state's better interest (as defined by the maximization of freedom for the individual) the UN and other org's fail in their charters and twist their purposes to mere "stability", it is up to us to do, not everything, but what we can, where we can, to the best of our abilities, to try to achieve those previous good and noble goals.

Your turn, twist meaning and invent words out of whole cloth away. :rolleyes:
 
Very interesting read Rich! Thanks for the link.

I find it hard to believe that with Iranian troops in the town for 36 hours before the chemical weapons attacks, the field commanders still thought that Iraqi forces were still in possession of the town.

The actual attack began at nightfall on the 16th, when 8 aircraft dropped chemical bombs; they were followed throughout the night by 14 aircraft sorties, with 7 to 8 planes in each group. Intermittent bombardment continued until the 18th (some reports say the morning of the 19th). If the Johnson et al argument is to be believed, Iranians were bombing their own elite units and key supporters for 48 hours, even though news reports were already circulating about the defeat of Iraqi troops on the 15th.
Click to expand...

So the opinion piece admits they don't know who was doing the bombing. So once again we're back to square one. How do they know how many sorties were flown if they can't keep it straight whether the Iraqis or Iranians were bombing the town.
 
Did I say "only ones"? :confused: Oh, wait I didn't say anything you just wrote.
Click to expand...

Yes, you did.

carebear said:
Are we currently uniquely placed in history to actually live up to those values upon which we were founded and to help enforce those agreements we helped bring into being? Yes, we are.
Click to expand...

You have an unfortunate habit of putting words in people's mouths or inserting your own interpretation of what they say in order to provide "evidence" to support your take on things.
Click to expand...

Nope, you clearly said it. You can mince words all you want, it means the same thing.

Oh sorry, I forgot about Poland. :D

Who we gave $250 million to to provide 100 soldiers.

Since we have seen, against their and their member state's better interest (as defined by the maximization of freedom for the individual) the UN and other org's fail in their charters and twist their purposes to mere "stability", it is up to us to do,
Click to expand...

Why is that?
 
Read the entire statement, Psycho.

It puts to test the most essential underpinnings of this, your latest Conspiracy Theory:
"It was Cyanide"
"The Iraqis had no Cyanide"

Additionally, as clearly pointed out, the Iranians were in clear control of the city. Now I know that gassing their own soldiers to pin the civilian deaths on Iraq makes for good conspiracy.....unfortunately, it doesn't make for plausible conspiracy.

Of course, we might now take stock of WMD's used on Iraqi people after the cessation of hostilities between Iraq and Iran. Who shall we attribute those to? US backed Sandinistas?

Rich
 
No, I didn't. But since you can't seem to accept any position but your own, even in the face of, the English language, and insist on defining what others say for them..... :rolleyes:

I'm done, you win on grounds of being irrational.
 
Rich, the official version is what's being put to test here. There is no real proof on either side. I still have to ask how the CIA got hold of the video?

Here's an article you might find interesting: http://www.propagandamatrix.com/a_war_crime_or_an_act_of_war.htm

Additionally, as clearly pointed out, the Iranians were in clear control of the city.
Click to expand...

So where were the dead Iranians? It's just an opinion that the Iranians had control of the city.
 
Hey, you're for a policy of intervention, and I'm not. That's all there is too it.

This is where the doublethink comes in.

Not wanting to have ones soldiers all over the entire world does not make one "isolationist".
 
Psycho said:
Rich, the official version is what's being put to test here.
Click to expand...
Psycho-
You're killing. me. You produce a document, we're to take as "fact", stating that the Iranians Killed the Kurds at Halabja. This statement is based on completely unsubstantiated words on non-experts as translated by self appointed "Enemies of Zion" or some such.

I respond with a more detailed examination of the evidence by experts in the field and your response is "There is no real proof on either side.". Then why'd you bring up al-Obaidi in the first place?

It's like a kid with a connect the dots coloring book. He turns to Page 4, connects some dots from stream of consciousness, adds some colors and runs back to Mummy to show her his picture of a tree. Of course Mummy puts it up on the fridge even though she knows it resembles a stream of consciousness set of scribblings.

I don't mind you doing that kind of "work". I just don't want you bringing it "home" so often. :D
Rich
 
Rich, where's the evidence that Iraqi's were the ones who gased the Kurds?

I respond with a more detailed examination of the evidence by experts in the field and your response is "There is no real proof on either side.". Then why'd you bring up al-Obaidi in the first place?
Click to expand...

You posted nothing more than I did. All a bunch of opinion pieces. There are "experts in the field" saying two different things.
 
Psycho-
Don't you get the point? This is what we each see in every discussion with you:

- You make some outlandish accusation of fact, usually relying on convenient snippets out of context, or the raunchiest sources possible.
- We're forced to demonstrate the absurdity of the allegation.
- You then announce both sides to be sheer opinion.
- You conclude that your opinion is not disproved.
- We sit at our keyboards, slack-jawed at the immaturity of the argument.

It's really a pretty consistent...and pretty dreadful.
Rich
 
You make some outlandish accusation of fact
Click to expand...

If how what I say doesn't always jive with the 'official' version is the definition of outlandish, then yea I'd have to agree with you. I back up what I say with where I got it from. I haven't been disproved and neither have you. Recognizing that, is where maturity comes in.
 
PsychoSword
Isolationist was a favorite derogitory term used by demo's to belittle conservatives under the Clinton regime of the 90's, now it seems to be a favorite term used by the neo-cons to describe conservatives.
Click to expand...

These people betray themselves and their agenda every time they introduce a new buzzword or phrase into common usage.

Yes, isn't it funny how much unfinished business of the Clinton adminstration the current administration has accomplished for them.

Coincidently or accidently of course ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top