• Ongoing coronavirus / COVID-19 discussion: how is the pandemic affecting your community, workplace, and wellness? 🦠

    Working from home? So are we. Come join us! Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, planning adjacent topics, and whatever else comes to mind. No ads, no spam, no social distancing.

Saddam gassed who?!??!

jresta

Cyburbian
Messages
1,474
Points
23
just another intelligence OVERSIGHT? Woops!

LONDON, Jul 2 (IPS) Evidence offered by a top CIA man could confirm the testimony given by Saddam Hussein at the opening of his trial in Baghdad Thursday that he knew of the Halabja massacre only from the newspapers.

Thousands were reported killed in the gassing of Iraqi Kurds in Halabja in the north of Iraq in March 1988 towards the end of Iraq's eight-year war with Iran. The gassing of the Kurds has long been held to be the work of Ali Hassan al-Majid, named in the West because of that association as 'Chemical Ali'. Saddam Hussein is widely alleged to have ordered Ali to carry out the chemical attack.

The Halabja massacre is now prominent among the charges read out against Saddam in the Baghdad court. When that charge was read out, Saddam replied that he had read about the massacre in a newspaper. Saddam has denied these allegations ever since they were made. But now with a trial on, he could summon a witness in his defence with the potential to blow apart the charge and create one of the greatest diplomatic disasters the United States has ever known.

A report prepared by the top CIA official handling the matter says Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the massacre, and indicates that it was the work of Iranians. Further, the Scott inquiry on the role of the British government has gathered evidence that following the massacre the United States in fact armed Saddam Hussein to counter the Iranians chemicals for chemicals.(my emphasis)

full text

you mean Rumsfeld and Saddam weren't just sipping chai and talking about the latest Tom Clancy novel?
 
Last edited:

Rumpy Tunanator

Cyburbian
Messages
4,473
Points
25
I saw the court precedings on T.V. and I can see it now..............Saddam is going to walk like Michael Jackson.
 

Seabishop

Cyburbian
Messages
3,838
Points
25
Didn't the Kurds know it was the Iranians and not the Iraqi's who gassed them? They seem to believe it was Saddam. Did the Iranians commonly gas innocent Iraqis like this?

Not to make excuses for Bush who seems more and more like a liar everyday, but unlike other current dicators Saddam did attack two of his neighbors for no good reason.
 

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,995
Points
31
The Rule (1.04.01a) is that when you make yourself dictator you become responsible for all gulags, torture camps, gassings, and wars that your nation makes happen. Sorry, but that is right there in the preface to the Dictator's Handbook as well as Chapter 1 - Getting Started. They also cover it in the first morning session of the conference every year.


PS what kind of wank would make this argument, and what kind of bigger wank would give it any play?
 

jresta

Cyburbian
Messages
1,474
Points
23
Seabishop said:
Didn't the Kurds know it was the Iranians and not the Iraqi's who gassed them? They seem to believe it was Saddam. Did the Iranians commonly gas innocent Iraqis like this?

Not to make excuses for Bush who seems more and more like a liar everyday, but unlike other current dicators Saddam did attack two of his neighbors for no good reason.
During the Iran/Iraq war all kinds of artillery was traded back and forth across the border. According to my brother, who is stationed on the border, it's not uncommon to see bombed out villages. I doubt the Iranians had the intention of hitting the village (but who knows) but with chemical weapons if the wind is blowing to the north and you put your round just to the north of your target you spare your target and kill anything downwind.

I've never heard the Kurds claim that Saddam gassed them. I've only heard it from Chalabi. If you ask the PUK (the most pro-american) they might say it was Saddam. If you ask the PDK they might tell you that it wasn't. If you ask the PKK they'll tell you the biggest problem is north of the border.

Saddam attacked the Iranians because Reagan paid him to (keeping islamic fundamentalism in check). Saddam attacked Kuwait over a decades long border dispute and Kuwaiti nose-thumbing while they were slant drilling under the border.
Neither is really an excuse for war but it i wouldn't say it was "no good reason" And while we're on dictatorships and spreading democracy . . . are we invading Kuwait next?
 
Last edited:

jresta

Cyburbian
Messages
1,474
Points
23
el Guapo said:
The Rule (1.04.01a) is that when you make yourself dictator you become responsible for all gulags, torture camps, gassings, and wars that your nation makes happen. Sorry, but that is right there in the preface to the Dictator's Handbook as well as Chapter 1 - Getting Started. They also cover it in the first morning session of the conference every year.

PS what kind of wank would make this argument, and what kind of bigger wank would give it any play?
Sorry, i must have missed that on my calendar.

The kind of wank that gives it any play is the kind of wank that doesn't appreciate hypocrites and liars.

We went into Iraq to depose a brutal dictator who gasses his own people . . . or was it those WMD's . . . or was it because of 9/11. If none of them are true and all we're left with is an average dictator who's killed fewer Kurds than the Turks then why are we there? Are we there to round up or kill islamic fundamentalists? Torture them in prisons? Throw them from speeding trucks?

I don't think Saddam needed our help with that.


P.S. - you become responsible for all gulags, torture camps, gassings, and wars that your nation makes happen
did you mean to be that ironic?
 

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,995
Points
31
jresta said:
Sorry, i must have missed that on my calendar.

The kind of wank that gives it any play is the kind of wank that doesn't appreciate hypocrites and liars.

We went into Iraq to depose a brutal dictator who gasses his own people . . . or was it those WMD's . . . or was it because of 9/11. If none of them are true and all we're left with is an average dictator who's killed fewer Kurds than the Turks then why are we there? Are we there to round up or kill islamic fundamentalists? Torture them in prisons? Throw them from speeding trucks?

I don't think Saddam needed our help with that.

I (first person singular) saw enough evil during the aftermath of the liberation of Kuwait City to justify the invasion 10 times over. Did you miss the mass graves of political prisoners, or is the next "Mooreism" that Haliburton burried oil workers the day before payday. Those liberal blinders must get real tight at times?
 

jresta

Cyburbian
Messages
1,474
Points
23
el Guapo said:
I (first person singular) saw enough evil during the aftermath of the liberation of Kuwait City to justify the invasion 10 times over. Did you miss the mass graves of political prisoners,
Hey - I didn't say there were no mass graves. All i'm saying is that they and you need to find a reason and stick with it and quit changing the story on the fly.

I'm also saying that those "poor political prisoners" of yesterday that you seem to have such sympathy for would probably be the same people chopping the heads off of marines and "contractors" if they were still alive today. It may not have been you personally but i've certainly read things on here like "the only way this will be over is when they're all dead" and "nuke the place to glass." They're either bad people or they aren't. You don't get to call them "innocents" because Saddam got to them first.


or is the next "Mooreism" that Haliburton burried oil workers the day before payday. Those liberal blinders must get real tight at times?
was this necessary or somehow central to your rebuttal?
 

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,995
Points
31
jresta said:
Hey - I didn't say there were no mass graves. All i'm saying is that they and you need to find a reason and stick with it and quit changing the story on the fly.

I'm also saying that those "poor political prisoners" of yesterday that you seem to have such sympathy for would probably be the same people chopping the heads off of marines and "contractors" if they were still alive today. It may not have been you personally but i've certainly read things on here like "the only way this will be over is when they're all dead" and "nuke the place to glass." They're either bad people or they aren't. You don't get to call them "innocents" because Saddam got to them first.



was this necessary or somehow central to your rebuttal?
You...you...you...you? Damn dude get a grip - I'm not W and YOU are attributing national policy to a freaking lowly planner. I'm one of the minority of vocal Republicans that was hesitant to support the war, but once it was going it is my contention that it should be finished properly. I'm also one of the voices on the right that is very much against the Patriot act, look at my posts. Did you mention that? I'm also the person that posted first on the Abu Ghirab prison incident. YOU can search all my posts on this issue and find a coherent theme throughout. That being, you don't alway get to pick your fights and sometimes America has to do the dirty thankless jobs - and that's life. And there are and where many good reasons to remove the mass murderer you would have left in place to continue the killing. The US did a good thing by removing the Baathist regeime. After much reflection, I still consider the war the right thing to do, and your arguments reek of political motivation more than a logical examination of the facts.

You may or may not be a [insert bad thing here], but implying you are in the underlined sentence like yours above is the wrong thing to do, so I won't. ;)
 

jresta

Cyburbian
Messages
1,474
Points
23
el Guapo said:
You...you...you...you? Damn dude get a grip - I'm not W and YOU are attributing national policy to a freaking lowly planner. I'm one of the few registered Republicans that was hesitant to support the war, but once it was going it is my contention that it should be finished properly.
I don't disagree

I'm also one of the voices on the right that is very much against the Patriot act, look at my posts. Did you mention that?
I'm not sure what this has to with Iraq but . . . no, i didn't mention it.

I'm also the person that posted first on the Abu Ghirab prison incident. YOU can search all my posts on this issue and find a coherent theme throughout.
I have no doubt that you're coherent and consistent. I've never said otherwise.

That being, you don't alway get to pick your fights and sometime America has to do the dirty thankless jobs and that's life. And there are and where many good reasons to remove the mass murderer you would have left in place.
Seeing as how he didn't start a fight with us and wasn't much capable of starting a fight with anyone - nor was he much of a threat to the shiites or the kurds - this was a "picked" fight.

I wouldn't have left Saddam in place nor would I have funded his war with Iran. I certainly would not have sold him chemical weapons. When one soils himself one does not pat himself on the back for cleaning up the mess. So it is with the Saddam. One does deserve scorn, however, if when cleaning up the mess one ruins his clothes by using too much bleach. We don't prove that mass murder is wrong by killing ten thousand civilians and sacrificing 1,000 of our own.

I still consider the war the right thing to do.
I got that.


You may or may not be a pedophile, but implying you are in the underlined sentence like yours above is the wrong thing to do, so I won't.
you never said this?

It makes me sick to see the US media kissing Islam's ass meanwhile denegrating the very people that are trying to formulate a sane and rational policy whereby they keep America safe and seek to eliminate terrorists overseas. These people need killing. And no one else is going to kill them except us ( and Great Brittan).
 

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,995
Points
31
you never said this?

It makes me sick to see the US media kissing Islam's ass meanwhile denegrating the very people that are trying to formulate a sane and rational policy whereby they keep America safe and seek to eliminate terrorists overseas. These people need killing. And no one else is going to kill them except us ( and Great Brittan).

Glad to see you doing some research instead of lumping me in the kill them all and let God sort them out camp. Yep, I wrote that...now put it in contex. Was "these people" all members of the islamic faith as your short snippit implies? Or did you take the quote out of context because you got caught generalizing and you don't want to be made to look like an ass again?

BTW
1. How would YOU have removed Saddam without a war? I'm curious.

2. Did you imply the US sold the Iraqis chemical weapons? Where is the proof of that?

3. We paid for the Iran-Iraq war? Can you show me a receipt?

4. How do you prove mass murder is wrong if you don't go in an get the SOB and have a real trial?

5. One more, when Saddam tried to have a death squad kill W's daddy, aint that starting a fight with us? When he shot at US airplanes over the no fly zone every single day since the ceasefire, is that starting a fight? When he kicked the UN inspectors out was that starting a fight?
 

jresta

Cyburbian
Messages
1,474
Points
23
el Guapo said:
Yep, I wrote that...now put it in contex. Was "these people" all members of the islamic faith as your short snippit implies? Or did you take the quote out of context because you got caught generalizing and you don't want to be made to look like an ass again?
your bravado might work for people who haven't seen the thread but I seriously doubt me pasting your whole post is going to convince them you said it with the best of intentions. If you feel otherwise i'll leave that up to you.

You were referring in that quote to "arab-street-islam" I don't know if that's trying to differentiate from Persian islam or Urdu islam or Bosnian islam that is practiced in a mosque but it doesn't much matter. The point is that you're calling Saddam a mass murderer for killing the people you want to see dead.


BTW
1. How would YOU have removed Saddam without a war? I'm curious.
Fighting probably would have been necessary to remove Saddam if your timetable was 'a year or two'. As i've said in a different thread the cleanest way to do it would've been to make overtures to Saddam's discontented generals. It would not have been preferable but it would certainly be no worse than our buddy Musharaf. Another possibility could've been to support the shia uprising in the early 90's with at least some air support. This would've been more bloody than the former option but at least more moral than being an occupier.

2. Did you imply the US sold the Iraqis chemical weapons? Where is the proof of that?
well as good as proof as any for me is Rumsfeld admitting such on TV when asked how he knew Saddam had chemical weapons. If that doesn't do it for you you can check out the recent declassified State Department notes on the matter. If that still doesn't do it for you you can check out the 1994 congressional inquiry into the matter or the '92 Senate hearing on it.


3. We paid for the Iran-Iraq war? Can you show me a receipt?

We didn't funnel cash to Saddam as we've done elsewhere but giving him american technology and providing intelligence and naval and air support counts for something. Again, you don't have to take my word for it, or the the word of Ted Koppel for that matter - just find the Congressional inquiry

4. How do you prove mass murder is wrong if you don't go in an get the SOB and have a real trial?
I didn't say he shouldn't have a trial or be set loose on the streets of one of the villages he's ravaged but killing a few thousand people who didn't like him either because you want to put him on the stand yesterday isn't my idea of justice.

5. One more, when Saddam tried to have a death squad kill W's daddy, aint that starting a fight with us? When he shot at US airplanes over the no fly zone every single day since the ceasefire, is that starting a fight? When he kicked the UN inspectors out was that starting a fight?
Trying to pick off W's daddy is pretty nasty and I suppose that could be considered starting a fight but in all fairness didn't HW try to do the same thing to Saddam? I respect HW, he meant well, but if you botched the job you should expect a payback. Somehow i don't believe W would have the blank check if his reasons for going to war were "he tried to kill my daddy."

Ceasefire to me means "suspension of hostilities". If US planes are still making bombing runs why would you expect the Iraqi army to not shoot back?

Hussein claimed that the inspectors' work was finished years before he kicked them out and that they had dismantled whatever weapons they found. He also said that some of the inspectors were spies. As of now it's a lot easier to swallow than W.'s story.
 

boiker

Cyburbian
Messages
3,889
Points
26
I think that I would have had an easier time accepting the war if the fed gov. was frank and honest from the begining. It's amazing what can happen when solid information is so highly valued and a populace is generally well-educated.

Jresta said:
When one soils himself one does not pat himself on the back for cleaning up the mess. So it is with the Saddam. One does deserve scorn, however, if when cleaning up the mess one ruins his clothes by using too much bleach.
It's better to clean up the mess than leave it there. A mess left unchecked will fester and become a more permanent problem than if addressed promptly. The problem we now have is that we tried to clean up too late. Iraq is stained. Seeing how national opinion after GW-1 was to oust Saddam, we should have assisted to remove Saddam at that time. It's going to take much more work now to establish a new regime in Iraq than it would have 10 years ago. It's going to be more tedious, take more manpower, cost more lives...but it has to be fixed.

To borrow Jresta's above quote again (more analogy speak to follow)... you can't crap your pants, continue to wear them and pretend it never happened. Also, don't blame the crap for a mistake that your at least partially to blame. No country is infallible. Understand the mistake, fix the mistake and move on. Oh yeah, and fixing a mistake like this is never a pleasant thing.
 
Top