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

Great Debates
21

Well, I see we won’t be wasting any energy or time with any pretense of civility, eh, Scylla?

I see no reason to discourage debate on the truth or falsity of the accusation. As I acknowledged, I entirely believed this allegation without a hint of doubt. I do not purport to have definitively settled the issue, that is quite beyond me.

Nonetheless, doubt has been raised. I will be very interested to see if the White House rebuts this article. I suspect that they will not, they will ignore it as entirely as they ignored the evidence that the Aluminum Tube story was at best an exaggeration, at worst deliberate disinformation. But we shall see, won’t we?

This is, I believe, the fourth thread I have begun regarding various irrefutable facts offered us which later proved to be dubious. The assassination attempt on Poppy. The Report That Did Not Exist. The Alumninum Tubes from Hell. And finally, this. In each case, GeeDubya has jutted his jaw at us and defied anyone not to believe this incontrovertible proof.

And in each case the evidence is…questionable. Open to interpretation, as in this instance. A bald faced lie, as regards the Phantom Report. He never acknowledges, he never admits, he never explains. In some instances, as in the SOTU speech, he repeats the dubious premise as if it were God’s own truth ( the Tubes). Without so much as a hint that any other interpretation is possible. Not a hint!

And where, in Mr. Bennets memorable phrase, is the outrage? Why am I “knee-jerk” in demanding the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth from a man who claims the moral authority to lead us to war?

Does it trouble you not at all, friend Scylla, that we are offered as damning fact things which are at best uncertain? Is your stubborn faith in Our Churchill so adamant that it will not admit of doubt?

22

Unfortunately, the same can be said for the flying saucer crash at Roswell. (Although the Majestic 12 documents certainly number fewer than 4 million.)

23

Only in your mind, elucidator. The Kurds themselves say it was the Iraqis who did the gassing.

Of course, you are in a state of wide-eyed innocence, wondering why oh why anyone would doubt the veracity of a New York Times editorial as a source of factual information, especially when it comes to oppossing a war in Iraq. Why would the cozy home of Maureen Dowd be accussed of being blatantly left-wing, you wonder. Would they dare lie or distort the truth, in a partisan attempt to push their own anti-Bush agenda?

I have some great Geocities cites regarding mind control and the tri-lateral commision. This NYT editorital has as much truth to it as they do.

24

at best uncertain? I’d say the article in the OP is at best ridiculous. good god, liberal posters jump all over december for posts with ten times the validity of this one.

25

Gee, Brutus, I’m dreadfully sorry about the blatant political slant of my source, the New York Pravda. But, gosh, Newsmax has nothing on the subject, and Ann Coulter hasn’t broached the topic yet. So we are dependent upon you for the clear, unvarnished truth.

Regrettably, in your haste to defend Truth and Virtue, you tired of typing before you could get around to your cites, your evidence, and the rest of the impedimentia. Perhaps later, when you have rested?

26

yes because no evidence that disagrees with your post has been posted already:rolleyes:

27

elucidator, why does Tariq Aziz’s admission that they used gas against the Kurds seem to carry no weight whatsoever? Ok, so Tony Pelletiere says “I don’t know” and Aziz says “Yes, it was us.”

Sounds pretty clear to me.

28

No. Nothing is certain. That Saddam gassed his own citizens is well-corroborated.

The only curiosity is your biased presentation of lies to draw false conclusions.

29

I doubt you’d be so critical if it were the white house reporting that Aziz was a liar. Iraqis only tell the truth, apparently, when it’s something that helps our case.

30

That wasn’t directed at you personally, Sua, I just thought it ironic that almost everyone believes that all Iraqi statesmen are evil tricksters - except when it’s convenient to believe they’re telling the truth.

31

I don’t really know anything about Tariq Aziz admission. And, for myself, that is rather beside the point. As I said, I have no desire to discourage debate on this editorial veracity, a good debate is worthy, regardless of the OP’s intentions.

My only point is that there is some doubt on this matter. I Saddam bin Laden an evil man? I have no doubt. Were war crimes committed? Hardly any doubt there either, though there is doubt as to whether or not Iraq is the only bad actor.

Is GeeDubya telling us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Ah, there’s the rub.

If the other esteemed members wish to debate the issue of whether or not Iraq is entirely responsible for the horror at Halabja, far be it from me to try to restrain thier enthusiasm.

But that isn’t my point, and I feel no obligation to defend it. Nonetheless, I would be interested in reading more about this Aziz thing, if there are cites in the offing.

32

Well aparently, Hansel didn’t bother to understand the facts before he made up his mind. Must be a republican…

The article in question makes it clear that the Iraqi’s and the Iranians both use chemical weapons in that battle. So your quote about pictures of expended Iraqi missiles means nothing all by itself.

Elucidators article goes on to say that the Kurds were killed by a cyanide-based gas, which the Iranians were known to use and which the CIA believes that Iraq did not possess at the time.

So it would seem that Aziz isn’t admitting to what you say that he is. Although it’s hard to say for sure, since your link is an opinion piece without links to any corrobrating references. One has only hitchens and your word for it that Aziz said anything at all.

33

I’ve been curious about this incident, because it serves as the official reason we betrayed Iraq and Iraq became the new Official Enemy.

When we supported and pushed Iraq to continue the Iran-Iraq war, we promised aid to help rebuild Iraq after the war. So Iraq followed our requests, and when the war was over, requested the aid we promised.

In response, (the very same day, even, IIRC), we announced that Iraq had gassed it’s own citizens and withdrew our support. Then Iraq became the new Official Enemy.

I don’t doubt this incident actually happened, but our official outrage over the incident is convenient rather than genuine, I think. Had we still been using Iraq as a pawn against Iran’s power, we’d have overlooked this incident without a second thought.

It was a convenient reason for us to create the new Official Enemy, and the first piece in the “Saddam is the new Hitler!” campaign.

34

Interesting, Mr. Steak. Any idea where I can find out more? Examples of Kissingeresque realpolitik appeal to my morbid interest.

35

I don’t see how such an admission could possibly be beside the point. The point being… “He Gassed His Own People!” Or Did He? If his own officials admit such a thing, it appears your question is answered. This ‘admission’ might not be all it’s cracked up to be, but if it is reliable how can you possibly consider it unimportant?

I would like to point out that GW ain’t exactly the only politician who has said Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people.

36

So now this is a question of whether or not dubya is telling the whole truth in general? how exactly does that translate into your earlier comment that this particular claim is “at best uncertain.” The kurds say that saddam did it, an iraqi official says that they did it, an article in the NYT says that one guy isn’t sure. How does this add up to the claim becoming “at best uncertain.”

37

No there isn’t. Just because you and some idiot writer at NYT keep repeating ‘There is doubt! There is doubt! There is doubt!’, does not make it so.

As has been said, Iraq (through Aziz) admits to it. Kurds say that it was Iraq. Bush, Clinton, and Bush say that it was Iraq. So you and a fellow conspiracy theorist can keep harping on a bizarre allegation, go for it. Doesn’t add any truth to the matter.

38

quote:

Originally posted by elucidator

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

I think Bush knew the Vikings landed in America before the Chineese. Lets impeach him for that.

39

Oh, jeez. The UN never covered Roswell extensively, and there aren’t anywhere near a million documents affiliated with it. If you’re going by that logic, the same can be said about the Soviet gulags, or the Holocaust.

After all, Solzhenitysn was an American pawn to slander the USSR. Or something. :rolleyes:

40

I was interested enough in this article to do some research. I didn’t read the NYT article either (my NYT password is at work, I can’t remember it), but this article from last year makes exactly the same argument, and in fact draws from Pelletere’s claimed research. Strangely, as in this article, taken almost verbatim from the above-linked article, Pelletere is referred to as “Stephen.”

On the other hand, many writers who don’t agree with the U.S’s position on Iraq do agree that Saddam used poison gas against the Kurds. A good example is this editorial by Robert Fisk of The Independent. There’s never been any love lost between Fisk and anyone named Bush, but he seems to accept the story.

I couldn’t find any example, though, of Tariq Aziz admitting to gassing the Kurds. The closest I found was this article (warning: contains a graphic picture of a Kurdish woman affected by poison gas) in which he says

Note that he didn’t talk about poison gas here, but only “the loss of Halabja.”

Of all the articles I looked at, though several suggested the “poison gas story” was a hoax, the only ones that did had one thing in common: their only cite was Tony (or is it Stephen?) Pelletere’s articles. Even some of those articles didn’t go so far to say as that there was no poison gas at Halabja, only that Saddam was using it against the Iranians and it reached the Kurds by mistake. (And not, as Pelletere claims, the Iranians using it against the Iraqis.) I can’t doubt from seeing and reading the articles that there was poison gas at Halabja (that picture of the Kurdish woman was nowhere near the most graphic picture), and I’m highly skeptical of Pelletere’s other claims, especially considering Tariq Aziz’s comments on “the loss of Halabja.” Surely there would be someone else with independent collaboration?