"He Gassed His Own People!" Or Did He?

Great Debates
1

In todays NY Times the following editorial from a Mr. Tony Pelletiere

puts forth what seems an utterly astounding proposition: that Saddam Hussein may not, in fact, be responsible for the gassing of Kurdish civilians at Halabja.

“But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.”

As for his bona fides:

“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.”

I am flabbergasted. This was one of those stories it never occured to me to question, if for no other reason than its almost mantric repitition. It has become an espcially ghastly joke, GeeDubya’s endless broken record of reiteration. And even as I’ve become more and more suspicious, this is one story I simply swallowed. Of course it must be true, if it weren’t, we would know by now, a lie that big simply cannot escape detection.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Time and again, the Bushistas have been publicly busted for falsifying the record in its headlong pursuit of war. Time and again, they blithely ignore the facts as if they were tedious trivialities, niggling details too inconsequential for a Leader of Men to trouble himself about. The Report That Didn’t Exist. The Dreaded Aluminum Tubes.

And now this. I keep hearing this exasperated Republican voice in my mind’s ear, intoning in shock and horror how Bill C. “lied to the American people!” And yet here before us is clear evidence of lying to the American people, not to cover up some prurient peccadillo, but in order to gull us into approving war!

Is my moral compass whacked here? That I don’t see what is clear to reasonable men, that lying about a knob job in the Oval Office is clearly more important than lying about war? Is a bit of the ol’ noggin somehow more insidioius, more horrifying than the potential deaths of thousands?

Is it possible that Mr. Pelleterre’s charges are true? Is it possible that GeeDubya knew that? And if he didn’t know, is there any conceivable excuse for not knowing? Has the White House rushed to provide evidence that this is all a base slander?

Is it time for the word “impeach” to make its way into our conversations?

2

OK, hold on a second here: a bunch of rebellious Kurds die in a gas attack on Iraqi soill, with no accusations or war btween Iraq and Turkey (the only other nation near Kurdish lands).

Right, I’m sure the nerve gas fairy did it. This is like saying we’re not sure Nazi stormtroopers gassd the Jews because no one in the CIA got photographs of them doing it. :rolleyes

3

Luckily, as Iran is already Grand Pompy of the Axis of Evil, Inc., if Iran did it Bush just says, “or them.” “Did we say ‘q’”?

4

Well I think we can rule out Iran as the reason for Saddams gassing them was that they supported Iran in the Iran-Iraq war.

We know Saddam had the weapons, the motive and the will to do it. Which means, with the lack of any other real suspect, he almost certainly did it.

5

I suppose we can’t blame Winston Churchill for that gas attack on the Kurds. If we’re lining up alternative suspects, the Turks (our allies) are not exactly fond of the Kurds either. But Saddam still looks like the most likely candidate.

6

I have half a cite from a Christopher Hitchen’s article:

He says he has photographic proof:

That pretty much settles it for me, though I’m unable to find any direct reference for Aziz accepting responsibility on behalf of Iraq for the attack.

7

Did any of you guys actually read the editorial in question?

8

Damn isn’t it amazing how we’ve been picking on such a nice guy? I think Time Magazine should consider him as next year’s “Man of the Year” and of course he should be on the Nobel list also.

:smiley: [sup]For chemicals.[/sup]

9

So what? A guy in the know says he’s not certain, and tosses a few bones to the doubters. Against that, we have (apparently) Tariq Aziz’s admission that Iraq did the gassing.

10

I doubt it. Maybe they didn’t want to register.
Here’s another tasty quote from the op-ed though:

Maybe this will spur some better debate.

11

Well, if it didn’t happen, someone neglected to inform Ali Hassan Majid, who, in reference to the chemical poisonings, said, “Who is going to say anything? The international community? Fuck them!”

Also persons that need to be informed: Amnesty International, the UN, Human Rights Watch, Middleastern expert and former CIA operative Robert Baer.

Let’s put it this way: There were numerous eyewitnesses, numerous survivors, 4 million documents in association with Operation al-Anfal (the campaign under which the murder happened), video records, and much more. Denying Iraqi gassing of the Kurds is like denying German gassing of the Jews.

12

The point of the article is that the Iraqis gassed the Iranian soldiers and the Kurds were killed as bystanders. There was no deliberate attempt to kill the Kurds.

I was surprised by the article too. I never thought the “he gassed his own people” was a good argument for war anyway but those who did should admit that the story of deliberate gassing of Kurdish civilians is a lot more doubtful than generally thought.

13

Well, Operation al-Anfal (Anvil) was a systematic program in ridding Iraq of ethnic Kurds in the north. In roughly a year of murderous assault, more than 150,000 Kurds were killed and about 900,000 were left homeless. More than 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed. Aside from 5,000 dead Kurdish civilians via poison gas at Halabja, about 2,000 other Kurdish civilians were killed by poison gas throughout Anfal. Perhaps these were collateral damage, but the other 148,000+ Kurdish civilians murdered in Anfal certainly weren’t.

Regardless of intentions, the usage of chemical weapons was still a war crime.

14

Well but a lot of the discussion has focussed specifically on the deliberate use of chemical weapons against Kurdish civilians not the campaign as a whole or the use of gas against soldiers. The article shows that that part of the argument is doubtful at best.

15

So let me get this straight:

It may be possible (according to one guy) that Iraq didn’t deliberately use gas on its own people, it’s just that they got in the way while they were trying to gas Iranians, in spite of the fact that the Iraqui vice-president supposedly addmitted to having done it. I mean we all know how much Iraq loves its Kurds. They’d never do anything to hurt them.
From this the OP draws the usual half-assed knee jerk conclusions and presents them as fact.

I guess it must be Friday.

16

Just to stir up the pot, the U.S. really gassed the Kurds. Yep, set it up to make poor innocent Sadaam look like a bloodthirsty heathen. This surely surpasses any horror they’ve ever commited. Yep.

17

I hear the Kurds eat a lot of curry.

It might have just been a Kurd fart.

18

Looking at the title of the editorial in question, “A War Crime or an Act of War?”, one must arrive at the conclusion that the writer doesn’t realize that using chemical weapons is a war crime. It’s plain and simple, really. Let me repeat to the author: Using chemical weapons is a war crime, even if used exclusively on soldiers.

Anyway, after reading the article, I’ve concluded that it is largely errant and misleading. When Bush refers to Saddam gassing his own people, where does he specifically say Halabja? Other Kurds were gassed, as Human Rights Watch notes in Appendix C of their report on Anfal.

As to the Halabja question, I think Dr. Khaled Salih aptly discredits reports on the contrary in his finely researched essay on Anfal, located here. Furthermore, as previously noted, Robert Baer, a 20+ year CIA veteran who lived extensively in Iraq and Lebanon, among other locations, referred to Halabja as Saddam gassing the Kurds on purpose. This man is a more qualified person than the writer of the editorial, and I would personally put more stock in Baer’s words.

19

The Halabja case is not the only piece of evidence to consider. FWIW:
This report claims that the Iraqi used chemical weapons in Birjinni on August 25, 1988. (The NYT piece addressed the gassing of Kurds in Halabja in March 1988).

Furthermore, " According to MEW, the Birjinni attack was one of dozens of chemical weapons attacks launched against the Kurds in 1988." MEW is the New York-based Middle East Watch. Again, FWIW.

elucidator: "Is it possible that Mr. Pelleterre’s charges are true? Is it possible that GeeDubya knew that? And if he didn’t know, is there any conceivable excuse for not knowing? Has the White House rushed to provide evidence that this is all a base slander?

Yes. No. No. Of course not. :smiley:

20

:sigh: Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tarik Aziz admitted in 1992 that the US did not give Iraq the “green light” to invade Kuwait. In earlier debates, both Chumpsky and Olentzero conclude that Aziz was lying.

Now, apparently, Aziz has admitted that Iraq gassed Halabja. Yet you and elucidator ignore this admission - apparently Aziz is lying again.

Why does this Aziz guy keep lying, and why do all of his lies harm Iraq’s interests? :rolleyes:

Sua