Are you kidding? The #1 tool of holocaust revisionism is the "no written order" canard--the attempt to claim that, because there isn't a scrap of paper signed by Hitler saying "I hereby authorize the final solution", then it is all a zionist lie. They also make a big fuss about the fact that the contemporary documents usually use cover words like "resettlement" or "special treatment" instead of "mass murder".
You're confusing "written orders" with proof of Nazi Germany's views towards Jews. Your comment was in response to the evidence I showed of how many Shiites had worked in the Baath party, holding high positions in the government that Shiites had never held until Saddam. It's also been a historical fact that Turkey has always been more cruel to the Kurds than Iraq and has killed fare more of them despite the fact that unlike in Iraq, Turkey was not in a war and Kurds were never supporting their enemy.
Turkey gets about 80% of their military aid from the United States historically.
In a somewhat similar vein, in the 1930s and 40s, a few pro-Communist historians in the west had endevoured to "disprove" the "lies" about the Ukraine famine and the gulags by noting that the official documents of the USSR tend not to mention them.
Right but when they do that people who disagree tend to cite facts to the contrary rather than changing topic to the Holocaust.
You're doing the exact same "literary denial gambit": Saddam can gas thousands, but as long as official documents of the dictator's ruling party talk about the "unity of the Iraqi people", you think this somehow makes such genocides less likely.
No what makes this less likely is that the number of bodies in Halabja actually numbered in the
hundreds, and those that were actually found died of a BLOOD AGENT!! Maybe there's your Holocaust connection afterall- they were killed by HCN! There's just one problem- there is nothing to suggest that Iraq was using blood agents at any time during this war. There are 10 documented cases of Iraqi using gas, and they used primarily mustard gas and one nerve agent.
Nonsense on stilts. It doesn't make it any less likely than the fact that Pravda in the 30s talked about "record harvests" and "freedom" all the time means that the Ukraine famine or the gulags never happened.
You are attempting to deny a dictator's genocide as propaganda because the dictator's press says the opposite--precisely the same worthless "logical" argument holocaust- and famine-deniers are using. [/QUOTE]
Hmm, more logical flaws. Stephen Pelletiere is not "the dictator's press". In case you didn't know he was our Senior CIA analyst during the Iran-Iraq war. His Army War College report on "Fighting a War against Iraq", written two years after the battle, goes into Halabja in great detail. Strategic studies from the Army War College are far more reliable than op-ed pieces, no matter the publication.
You're all using the exact same method for your denial: you believe the dictator's propaganda (whether it is about "resettling" the jews, "record harvests" in the Ukraine, or "unity of the Iraqi people" in Saddam's Iraq) and then dismiss the undeniable horrific reality because it does not fit with that propaganda.
Stephen Pelletiere was "the dictator"? Jesus Christ!!!! We have propagand officers for DICTATORS working in high positions of the CIA!! WE'RE DOOMED!! Michael Scheuer is probably Bin Laden's press secretary!! Jude Wanniski also has never received any money from the Baath party or Saddam Hussein. He was working for the Reagan administration at the time.
RIGHT!!!, actually. For you both "question" it for the same reasons. See above.
A lack of evidence is a lack of evidence. By your logic David Icke could beat you over the head with the Holocaust story when you demand evidence of his Reptillian bloodlines.
In any case, you don't seem to realize that your own claims disprove what you say. Whatever Saddam said about the "unity of Iraq", he had not the slightest problem of throwing anybody who opposed him into jail or torture or death.
Do you realize that the people who opposed him in many cases were armed insurgents, supported by the US, Shah of Iran, the Ayatollah, Israel, etc. Even terrorist groups like Al Dawa. When you have political opponents that "oppose you" by blasting you to pieces, you tend to be a little bit jumpy. I am not denying that he is by definition a dictator, nor am I denying that he would brutally suppress rebellions. However, because of my knowledge of history, I see little difference between Saddam and people like Lon Nol, Ngo Dinh Diem, Pinochet, etc. In other words, he is clearly not the "Butcher of Bagdhad", and the US supported him and put him in power. Also the US, through sanctions, DU, bombings, and invasion, seems to have killed far more people than Saddam ever has
He gassed Halabja, rather obviously, not because he wanted to kill all Kurds on the face of the planet, but because those Kurds, in his view, opposed him politically. That Kurds who sucked his penis were promoted is besides the point.
Opposed him politically? Try opposed hiim militarily. Halabja was the site of a
battle. The Iraqis were in the town, detected the Iranian attack, and evactuated the town before they arrived. Some of the local Kurdish militia were fighting on the side of the Iranians. When the Iranians were driven out, a larger Iraqi force pursued them. Shooting gas at the town in this case would have amounted to firing what is a defensive chemical weapon into their own path as they chased the smaller Iranian force.
Well, maybe the revisionists agree the jews were alleged to have been killed in gas chambers--just like you agree the Kurds were alleged to have been killed by gas shells--but they deny the jews were really killed in gas chambers, just like you deny the Kurds were really killed with gas shells.
You missed the point entirely because you are hiding behind your emotionally charged Holocaust issue. The point is that it is nobody concedes that HCN in a gas chamber will kill people. However, chemical weapons on the battlefield are a different story. They are notoriously unreliable and difficult to use. More importantly, bodies killed by chemical agents in Halabja were found to have died from a
blood agent, which Iraq was not believed to have possessed.
And why? Well, since they "know" by the "lack of documentary evidence" that no final solution had ever occured, the whole issue of revisionists is to find some pseudoscientific reason why the gas chambers couldn't have worked as "jewish atrocity propaganda" says they did. Incidentally, that the gas concentration could not have been made high enough to kill--an argument you seem somewhat familiar with--is a popular one with revisionists, too.
Are you debating the Holocaust or Halabja now?
You are doing the same thing: now that official state propaganda has "proven" Saddam wouldn't do such a nasty thing, talking as it does about the unity of all Iraqi (and similar B.S.), Mr. armchair chemistry expert had decided nerve gas could not kill this way, so that settles it. Must be jewish, I mean anti-communist, I mean neo-con atrocity propaganda.
Yes the American CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency is the "State propaganda" mechanism for the Iraqi Baathist party. So THAT'S why we had to invade, they had ruled our government agencies for over a DECADE!!
Nerve gas? Who said anything about nerve gas? Do you understand that there are Blister agents, Nerve agents, and Blood agents? Iraq was known to possess only blister agents(mustard) and some nerve agents(Tabun, VX, Sarin). Victims of chemical weapons in Halabja were found to have died from a BLOOD AGENT. This was confirmed by reporters and international observers.
But you didn't present any facts. You presented irrelevant evidence (that some Kurds were promoted by him, forgetting that the point was that Saddam was fighting those Kurds who opposed him politically), official state propaganda, and armchair chemistry as "evidence" to deny the genocide of thousands.
This may surprise you but it is you that haven't provided any facts. First of all, the amount of bodies found were in the hundreds, not thousands. Second, you have labelled American intellligence sources to be "official state propaganda" of Iraq. Lastly, I do not rely on "armchair chemistry". I was a veteran of the army who still studies tactical doctrine and strategy so I am familiar with the use and characteristics of chemical warfare though that was not my specific MOS. Gas on the battlefield has been problematic since WWI.
Now are you going to get around to presenting some evidence of these "thousands" who were gassed by Iraq.
You should be ashamed of yourself, but let me guess, you're probably proud of what an "independent thinker" you are for not buying "atrocity propaganda"... another point of similarity, incidentally, between you and holocaust or communist atrocity deniers.[/QUOTE]
