It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did Saddam Gas the Kurds? Have a Look; Cos It’s Remains Uncertain…

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2006 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Try Google Search: “Did Saddam Gas Kurds”

The controversial article from a senior CIA analyst that has ignited an “alarming” debate… www.twf.org...

Some Opposing Links…
Sceptical: www.informationclearinghouse.info...
Two opposing articles: www.unknownnews.net...
Anti Reagan article: marc.perkel.com... (i.e. he did gas the Kurds but we are responsible for supplying him with the gas (contains a great picture of Saddam and Rumsfeld happily together).

And if Saddam did gas the Kurds he wouldn’t be the first to have thought of the idea. Our national hero Winston Churchill even wrote a memo about the idea www.globalresearch.ca...
(He was then a young man serving under the British Empire; ironically writing to Downing Street).
Try Google search: “Winston Churchill Gas the Kurds”

And it is certainly a fact that the British did kill 9000 Iraqis (but not Kurds) with gas fired from shells (but not air as Churchill would have wanted) i.e. I say the following Guardian article gives the wrong impression. Apart from that it’s completely accurate.
www.guardian.co.uk...
www.informationwar.org...
www.againstbombing.org...

You know back then we actually erased whole villages for not paying their taxes.

But this isn’t about what the British did it’s about Saddam did.
What is known is that after winning power and failing to compromise with them (he offered them complete autonomy within Iraq) Saddam did oppress the Kurds. Their known acceptance of Iranian bribes to steer up trouble inside Iraq was the official reason given for Saddam’s attack on Iran which kick started the war, and in which we the West sold weapons to both sides (supposedly to prevent ether from gaining an absolute victory). And it is partly because we supplied weapons to the Iranians (through various means) that the casualty figure for this war ended up becoming so huge (I think it’s over a million).
But as one article asks: If the Kurds were allied to the Iranians why would the Iranians gas them? The answer is simple: Iraqi forces were in the area. I.e. it was a military as well as humanitarian blunder; therefore of course the Iranians would not want to accept responsibility for gassing their friends.
In my view the biggest single piece of evidence against Saddam gassing the Kurds is that the wrong gas was used (one possessed by Iran and not by Iraq).

Finally: How could this be possible?
Some people believe that though our media is biased it is highly competitive (even in the face of political interests). Think again; look at the inventory of a company like News International: www.ketupa.net...
The newspaper holding are particularly interesting. Out of 172 titles owned at the time of the Iraq war, all 172 supported the war in Iraq.
Think the majority share holder Rupert Murdoch isn’t political? Think again www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk...

Other companies like Time Warner are almost equally as bad (they just don’t have a figure as famous as Rupert Murdoch to head them).
This is how western democracy works. Most of the media is controlled by very few people who are not outside the law to lobby and deal with politicians. Most of the western people read their media. As my links demonstrate there are some truly independent outposts of media (ATS being an example). But as long as the vast majority of people get their information from mainstream sources, so too is their knowledge also mainstream. Therefore anybody else is a minority, and is most unlikely to even tip the balance of power in any meaningful way in any particular political seat that’s up for grabs.

I’ve given many of these links before, but now you can see them in action together.
So what do you think? Is it really possible that Saddam didn’t gas the Kurds? (even though he did oppress them for accepting bribes). Because if it’s true, surely it means this factual “misunderstanding” would be second only to the WMD issue itself?

Bye the Way Here’s Some Additional Iraq Reading…
A minimum of 38059 Iraqis have been reported dead IN THE MEDIA alone. Source…
www.iraqbodycount.org...
So yeah that doesn’t include those who have died without a journalist too scared to report it. And remember that Muslims like to bury their dead as quickly as possible.
A more realistic estimate puts it perhaps as high as quarter of a million…
www.informationclearinghouse.info...

This source puts at least 250,000 Iraqi soldiers killed in gulf war one www.wsws.org... (not sure how accurate it is).

In 1996 Madeleine Albright infamously admitted that the loss of half a million Iraqi children due to U.N sanctions was “worth it”. www.fff.org...
I think that woman’s evil, but I semi respect her as at least she follows a kind of logic.
Remember The Iraq oil for programme was only introduced in 1995 en.wikipedia.org... (4 years after the bloody sanctions were imposed). And a lot of oil money was to go to war reparations to Kuwait before it went to Iraqis, but this was finally changed after some years of Saddam not making full use of it. Then Saddam pretty much did; but the idea that Saddam used it for WMD programme’s is as propagandas as the WMD’s themselves have turned out to be. Although it remains probably true that he used some of the money to keep his regime going, and therefore prevent his country from collapsing into the state chaos it currently stands in today.




posted on May, 29 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Still trying to out do Saddam's defense team, Liberal1984?
Do not feel bad, some here have tried likewise.

Last I heard, Saddam had been charged with such:
Saddam charged with gassing the Kurds

I suppose next, you will be posting that Saddam never butchered, tortured, shredded, killed, or murdered his own people, huh?








seekerof

[edit on 29-5-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Instead of commenting on me (the information provider) why don’t you comment on the information I’ve provided more directly?
Then again thanks for those links (but I'm not sure if all where as well backed up as mine).
I’ve made my position on Saddam’s defence team quite clear right here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

And if you don’t like me defending Saddam perhaps you can take comfort that my defence of him has little to do with him personally; and more to do with defending the facts themselves that surround him. If people don’t like facts; or questions over facts that they themselves may have come to accept then I suggest they are on the wrong website. Instead why not try something like Fox News?

P.S I believe that paper shredder story was false: www.indymedia.org.uk...
(Try Google search paper shredder story false).

So yes at least you were right about me disputing that one next. As for Saddam having killed people well of course he did. But as for him bringing social and civil stability to Iraq well that’s something else. And I would mention that as many of the people who rebelled against him did so more for religious reasons (than say any western ideals of democracy) I couldn’t care too much less about them. Basically I don’t like religious fundamentalists because unlike secular people they are not contempt with respecting you. And of course in fundamentalist Islam that includes your woman (unveiled or even educated). In my opinion these people belong to the ways of Stone Age, and as long as they remain unwilling to respect the other ways of others it’s just as well if they die to methods of the Stone Age.
And if anyone says that’s right wing they’re right; but perhaps it isn’t half as bad as accepting the detainment of children in solitary confinement at Guantanamo Bay. I mean for what purpose? Because we are too ashamed to admit we shouldn’t have detained them? Or because we are as bad or worse than them?

You have to remember seekerof that if people had done things my way; we would still have an abundance of oil flowing out of Iraq (partly because insurgents wouldn’t be blowing up the oil pipelines).
We would still be in a position to attack Iran, because Saddam (would once again be our ally). And every American or Iraqi life lost to this war (or its repercussions) would have been spared. The billions of dollars expended would still be with us, and maybe Iran wouldn’t even be ether contemplating defending themselves with a nuclear bomb; or worse using one against Israel to bring about the goals of yet another side to fundamentalist religion.
Yes we would have all missed out on those photogenic pictures of Iraq being bombed (but I would rather it).

Perhaps I'm wrong? But it’s my belief that if we ever have Iraq back together again (and without it being an Iran 2) it will only be because we have another Saddam (under a different name).
And because we are unwise, because the character of western foreign policy is insane as well as stupid, and because our politicians lack guts Saddam will be executed. It will be done ether with a new leader in mind or a new (perhaps worse) leader close behind. And if Saddam is a dead man walking, then there is a reason for not defending him personally. But the facts and questions that surround him are always worth defending because they are forever part of reality. We know our government lies; exposing this doe’s wisdom justice, testing it directs us towards it.



new topics
 
0

log in

join