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.

 

Kurds

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 07:18 AM
link   
Saddam did not gas his own people. The kurds although living in Iraq are not Iraqis. I really hate when it is said so. So from now on please refain from using broadcast soundbites, which although help make Saddam look worse are not actually true.




posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 08:54 AM
link   
That whole story is bent and simplified to make Saddam look as bas as possible. People who use that to criminalize Saddam always leave out all the real details of what actually happened.



posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Please....your splitting hairs. He used chemical weapons against women and children. Saddam was President of Iraq. The Kurds in question were Iraqi citizens. Ethnic Kurds yes, but also Iraqi citizens.
He used chemical weapons against Iraqis.



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by sciath
Please....your splitting hairs. He used chemical weapons against women and children. Saddam was President of Iraq. The Kurds in question were Iraqi citizens. Ethnic Kurds yes, but also Iraqi citizens.
He used chemical weapons against Iraqis.


In terms of ethnicity, "Iraqi" is meaningless. Iraq is not an ethnically homogenous country. Saddam didn't "gas his own people." But he did gas fellow Iraqis.



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 12:46 AM
link   
it's a fair point.. i'm really getting sick of this soundbite.

BUT.... on the other hand, does it really matter? whatever kind of country iraq was in terms of ethnic demography, they shouldn't have been gassed and the act was an evil one. saddam was still president and had a responsibility to all his citizens to, at the least, not gas them. i don't consider inuits "my own people", but if bush decided to gas them in alaska one day, does it matter if they were "my own people" or not? no, i'd be just as outraged.

-koji K.



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 12:58 AM
link   
To fully understand why the kurds got gassed you have to know the history. The kurds were backed by Iran during the 10 year war. Several Kurdish attempts to overthrow Saddam failed.Saddam gassed them as well as iranians since both were perceived as threats. After the cease fire the kurds lost their iranian support. Saddam subsequently stopped. To tottally blame saddam for these actions is wrong...If it was such a problem why didn't Reagan do anything about it? Why? Cause we supported Saddam. We gave him intel on where to strike Iran..We were trying to prevent islamic fundamentalism from spreading but it back fired. This whole Saddam issue was a problem for the UN not a Unilateral US force.



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Falcon you still sound as if you condone the use of chemical weapons against innocent civilians.
It does not matter that the Kurds have always had separitist tendencies. It does not matter that they have occasionally revolted against the Iraqis and strive foir independance. He gassed women and children.
It was an atrocity. Say it. Say that you understand that the use of chemical weapons against women and children is a horrible thing.



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by sciath
Please....your splitting hairs. He used chemical weapons against women and children. Saddam was President of Iraq. The Kurds in question were Iraqi citizens. Ethnic Kurds yes, but also Iraqi citizens.
He used chemical weapons against Iraqis.

So, we nuked Japan. What's the difference? Is he any worse than we are? BTW, wasn't he using the chemicals we supplied to use on Iran? While, close to the same time, we also supplied Iran with chemical weapons to use on Iraq. Either way, we provided the means of death, and had every intention of them being used. In short, there's much more to the story than Saddam just gassing the Kurds. In fact, arguably, without the US supplying chemical arms, it may never have even happened.

[edit on 11-7-2004 by Damned]



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Please point me to one reliable source that says we supplied chemical or biological technology to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. We did supply intel on Iranian troop movements and dispositions, but never chemical weapons or the means for the creation of chemical weapons.



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 09:09 PM
link   
So....let me get this right...Saddam didn't use gas to kill millions of innocent people? Who DID then? They are as much a part of Iraq as California is part of this country. Do you condone what he did even if they WEREN'T Iraqis? What do you think would make it RIGHT for him to do that? I sincerely hope their aren't any people with your ideas deciding the verdict at his trial. He'd probably get off then. But it sounds as if you think he is innocent anyway.



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Sorry! But in my haste to answer his assinine post I forgot to mention I was specifically refererring to Lexus Panther.



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by sciath
Please point me to one reliable source that says we supplied chemical or biological technology to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. We did supply intel on Iranian troop movements and dispositions, but never chemical weapons or the means for the creation of chemical weapons.


www.counterpunch.org...

The Reagan administration and its special Middle East envoy, Donald Rumsfeld, did little to stop Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction in the 1980s, even though they knew Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons "almost daily" against Iran, it was reported yesterday.

US support for Baghdad during the Iran-Iraq war as a bulwark against Shi'ite militancy has been well known for some time, but using declassified government documents, the Washington Post provided new details yesterday about Mr Rumsfeld's role, and about the extent of the Reagan administration's knowledge of the use of chemical weapons.

The details will embarrass Mr Rumsfeld, who as defence secretary in the Bush administration is one of the leading hawks on Iraq, frequently denouncing it for its past use of such weapons.

The US provided less conventional military equipment than British or German companies but it did allow the export of biological agents, including anthrax; vital ingredients for chemical weapons; and cluster bombs sold by a CIA front organisation in Chile, the report says.


www.guardian.co.uk...

The companies were named by Iraq in a 12,000 page dossier submitted to the UN in December. The Security Council agreed to US requests to censor 8000 pages -- including sections naming western businesses which aided Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programme.

www.zmag.org...

-koji K.



[edit on 11-7-2004 by koji_K]



posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by sciath
Please point me to one reliable source that says we supplied chemical or biological technology to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. We did supply intel on Iranian troop movements and dispositions, but never chemical weapons or the means for the creation of chemical weapons.

Are you that naive? It's very well known. Do some research. It's all over the place.

www.scoop.co.nz...

Try using google. You'll be amazed with how many sources you'll find that confirm this. It's no secret. There are literally thousands of reputable sources.

www.iranchamber.com...
www.belleville.com...
www.zmag.org...
www.ph.ucla.edu...

If these aren't reputable enough for you, go ahead and look up anything that you don't believe. As I said, it's no secret.

[edit on 12-7-2004 by Damned]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join