|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 12:07 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Was it Iran, rather than Iraq, that used poison gas on Kurdish civilians?
| Quote: |
Another persistent myth in wide circulation is that Iraq never used poison gas against Kurdish civilians, a point often cited by those opposed to war. The main source of this myth is a series of articles, including a January New York Times op-ed by former CIA Iraq analyst Stephen Pelletiere (who, along with two co-authors, has also written a book on the subject). The argument centers on a 1988 attack on the northern Iraq village of Halabja in which thousands of Kurdish civilians were killed. Pelletiere contends that it was Iranian gas rather than Iraqi gas which killed the Kurds, a point he substantiates by citing a US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report produced shortly after the attack which reaches that conclusion. His key piece of evidence is that "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." In a letter to the New York Review of Books, Pelletiere and two other authors go even further, denying that Iraq ever used gas against Kurdish civilians.
Pelletiere's claims are contradicted by an overwhelming body of evidence from multiple sources. Eyewitness accounts, including those cited in a 1993 Human Rights Watch report and survivors quoted in a 2002 New Yorker article, point to Iraqis as the source of the gas. In addition, as Spencer Ackerman of the New Republic has pointed out, survivors of the gas attack had symptoms consistent with exposure to mustard gas or the nerve gas Sarin. And - in direct contradiction to Pelletiere - a 1991 DIA report noted that Iraq did, in fact, possess hydrogen cyanide gas (though it is not likely that they used it at Halabja).
Other less direct evidence also points to the likelihood that it was Iraq, not Iran, who gassed the Kurds in Halabja. Human Rights Watch obtained a tape of Ali Hassan al-Majid, the Iraq commander in charge of the campaign, telling Iraqi politicians in 1987 or 1988 that "I will kill them all [the Kurds] with chemical weapons!" Moreover, Iraq waged a brutal campaign against Kurdish civilians in 1987 and 1988, killing at least 50,000, according to Human Rights Watch. And Physicians for Human Rights has proven conclusively through chemical analysis of soil samples that Iraq used Sarin against Kurdish civilians on at least one occasion. |
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030320.html |
This is a strawman surely. People are opposed to the war because the reasons given were lies. I for one never thought that Iraq didn;t use chemical weapons.
America didn't go into the war for humanitarian reasons, lets not twist the facts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 5:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Was it Iran, rather than Iraq, that used poison gas on Kurdish civilians?
| Quote: |
Another persistent myth in wide circulation is that Iraq never used poison gas against Kurdish civilians, a point often cited by those opposed to war. The main source of this myth is a series of articles, including a January New York Times op-ed by former CIA Iraq analyst Stephen Pelletiere (who, along with two co-authors, has also written a book on the subject). The argument centers on a 1988 attack on the northern Iraq village of Halabja in which thousands of Kurdish civilians were killed. Pelletiere contends that it was Iranian gas rather than Iraqi gas which killed the Kurds, a point he substantiates by citing a US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report produced shortly after the attack which reaches that conclusion. His key piece of evidence is that "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." In a letter to the New York Review of Books, Pelletiere and two other authors go even further, denying that Iraq ever used gas against Kurdish civilians.
Pelletiere's claims are contradicted by an overwhelming body of evidence from multiple sources. Eyewitness accounts, including those cited in a 1993 Human Rights Watch report and survivors quoted in a 2002 New Yorker article, point to Iraqis as the source of the gas. In addition, as Spencer Ackerman of the New Republic has pointed out, survivors of the gas attack had symptoms consistent with exposure to mustard gas or the nerve gas Sarin. And - in direct contradiction to Pelletiere - a 1991 DIA report noted that Iraq did, in fact, possess hydrogen cyanide gas (though it is not likely that they used it at Halabja).
Other less direct evidence also points to the likelihood that it was Iraq, not Iran, who gassed the Kurds in Halabja. Human Rights Watch obtained a tape of Ali Hassan al-Majid, the Iraq commander in charge of the campaign, telling Iraqi politicians in 1987 or 1988 that "I will kill them all [the Kurds] with chemical weapons!" Moreover, Iraq waged a brutal campaign against Kurdish civilians in 1987 and 1988, killing at least 50,000, according to Human Rights Watch. And Physicians for Human Rights has proven conclusively through chemical analysis of soil samples that Iraq used Sarin against Kurdish civilians on at least one occasion. |
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030320.html |
This is a strawman surely. People are opposed to the war because the reasons given were lies. I for one never thought that Iraq didn;t use chemical weapons.
America didn't go into the war for humanitarian reasons, lets not twist the facts. |
Please read the whole article.
A lot of people say they oppose the war on humanitarian grounds . Anyone who says so is either being disingenuous or is ignorant. Anyone who tries that argument is on very weak ground.
I didn't say that humanitarian reason was the reason the US went to war.Though I am sure it was a rationalization that going to war would be okay by the US government.
At the same time Saddam's human record was evidence of how ruthless and cruel he was. That means were he ever to get free and rearm he would be a serious problem.
Lies or no lies by the president of the US - Saddam never gave up his war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
