Try Google Search: “Did Saddam Gas Kurds”
The controversial article from a senior CIA analyst that has ignited an “alarming” debate…
Some Opposing Links…
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.
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
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
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…
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…
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”.
I think that woman’s evil, but I semi respect her as at least she follows a kind of logic.
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.