The W
Views: 100281016
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
31.10.07 1643
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Something to think about Register and log in to post!
(1828 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (7 total)
anibanging
Italian
Level: 35

Posts: 95/246
EXP: 262345
For next: 17593

Since: 5.3.02

Since last post: 2025 days
Last activity: 71 days
#1 Posted on 8.3.03 1057.15
Reposted on: 8.3.10 1059.02
Click Here (thestar.com)

For all who blindly cite the fact that Saddam has gassed his own people this may be worth considering.

The article was published in the Toronto Star which does have a pretty extreme left wing and anti-war bias. Never the less, it's a column from the paper's ombud and expresses the point pretty clearly.
Promote this thread!
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 1376/3273
EXP: 12787859
For next: 303494

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 207 days
Last activity: 8 days
#2 Posted on 8.3.03 1241.21
Reposted on: 8.3.10 1242.11
Interesting. And here I had always assumed that the village had been attacked to put down another Kurdish uprising.

-Jag
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1053/1759
EXP: 4934509
For next: 58361

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1324 days
Last activity: 90 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#3 Posted on 8.3.03 1250.54
Reposted on: 8.3.10 1251.30
Kind of sketchy if you ask me... they are basically saying that the town was under Iranian control when it was gassed, so it was not REALLY gassing his own people.

If I may draw a comparison, that would be like us going to war with Russia, the Russians taking Seattle, and us responding by NUKING it. Who cares about what military is occupying the city- your civilians are still there.

No matter which way the evidence points, it was still a heinous act.
anibanging
Italian
Level: 35

Posts: 96/246
EXP: 262345
For next: 17593

Since: 5.3.02

Since last post: 2025 days
Last activity: 71 days
#4 Posted on 8.3.03 1520.12
Reposted on: 8.3.10 1529.02
    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    Kind of sketchy if you ask me... they are basically saying that the town was under Iranian control when it was gassed, so it was not REALLY gassing his own people . . . No matter which way the evidence points, it was still a heinous act.


Not to go on the attack here, but did you read the article? You seemed to have missed some pretty important points:

1. The story of Saddam gassing and killing thousands of innocent Kurds (who may have been Iraqis) was started by Iran which was at war with Iraq at the time. I think we're all pretty familiar with the fact that nations at war often lie about each other.

2. The evidence seems to point to Iranian gas being behind the deaths.

3. The picture war supporters have painted about Saddam gassing his own people for no reason is either not true or at least greatly exagerated.

(edited by anibanging on 8.3.03 1620)
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 533/1528
EXP: 4088247
For next: 102901

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2838 days
Last activity: 2681 days
AIM:  
#5 Posted on 8.3.03 1605.04
Reposted on: 8.3.10 1605.29
    Originally posted by anibanging
      Originally posted by Pool-Boy
      Kind of sketchy if you ask me... they are basically saying that the town was under Iranian control when it was gassed, so it was not REALLY gassing his own people . . . No matter which way the evidence points, it was still a heinous act.


    Not to go on the attack here, but did you read the article? You seemed to have missed some pretty important points:

    1. The story of Saddam gassing and killing thousands of innocent Kurds (who may have been Iraqis) was started by Iran which was at war with Iraq at the time. I think we're all pretty familiar with the fact that nations at war often lie about each other.

    2. The evidence seems to point to Iranian gas being behind the deaths.

    3. The picture war supporters have painted about Saddam gassing his own people for no reason is either not true or at least greatly exagerated.

    (edited by anibanging on 8.3.03 1620)



Supposing for the sake of argument that Saddam never gassed his own people - so what? For the people who think Saddam is a threat, this changes nothing. And for those who think Saddam is a tyrant, well, there is plenty of other evidence to support that. This is like saying a criminal might only have killed 15 people, not 20 like we originally thought.

And I offer this semi-rhetorical question: Why did we establish no-fly zones after Gulf I?

(edited by PalpatineW on 8.3.03 1705)
Cerebus
Scrapple
Level: 109

Posts: 530/3475
EXP: 13535212
For next: 424478

Since: 17.11.02

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 13 hours
#6 Posted on 8.3.03 1747.56
Reposted on: 8.3.10 1751.42
I don't remember where I read it, but some american fighter pilots were shot at flying in a no -flying zone. It sounds to me like they SHOULD be shot at, for FLYING in the NO-FLY zone.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 213

Posts: 1815/16322
EXP: 143093896
For next: 273011

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 4 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#7 Posted on 8.3.03 1919.08
Reposted on: 8.3.10 1919.56

    Originally posted by Cerebus
    I don't remember where I read it, but some american fighter pilots were shot at flying in a no -flying zone. It sounds to me like they SHOULD be shot at, for FLYING in the NO-FLY zone.
Okay, if you're going to show THIS level of ignorance I'm not going to let you post in this forum anymore. This is the only warning.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Thread ahead: Bush, Chevron, Halliburton, oh my!
Next thread: Bush discipline
Previous thread: What happened to DF
(1828 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Something to think aboutRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.235 seconds.