From the NYTimes on Iraq...

[Sandman]

The real question is; why is gassing villagers morally worse than shooting them, blowing them up or incinerating them?

[GePap]

I read the article: wordy, as all New Yorker pieces are.

I would agree that the piece makes a better case about Habjala than Pelletiere.

The wonders of dialogue: ask a question, get an answer, and you know more at the end than at the beginning.

I still think calling it "Holocaust denial" is hyperbole. After all, questioning their role in habjala is not the same as denying the rest of the campaign, carried out the old fashioned way, now is it? And as the article said, most people died in the old fashioned way. No one questions Saddam's overall campaign vs. the Kurds, not in the way people still question the the Turks actions in 1915.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman
The real question is; why is gassing villagers morally worse than shooting them, blowing them up or incinerating them?

hows this

"Baban told me that the initial results of the Halabja Medical Institute-sponsored survey show abnormally high rates of many diseases. He said that he compared rates of colon cancer in Halabja with those in the city of Chamchamal, which was not attacked with chemical weapons. "We are seeing rates of colon cancer five times higher in Halabja than in Chamchamal," he said.

There are other anomalies as well, Baban said. The rate of miscarriage in Halabja, according to initial survey results, is fourteen times the rate of miscarriage in Chamchamal; rates of infertility among men and women in the affected population are many times higher than normal. "We're finding Hiroshima levels of sterility," he said.

[Bereta_Eder]

Turkey does the same to its Kurds.
Iraq's not really that special.

But some odd balls claim that Turkey's burning of kurdish villages is allegendly more humane that Iraq's.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
I read the article: wordy, as all New Yorker pieces are.

I would agree that the piece makes a better case about Habjala than Pelletiere.

The wonders of dialogue: ask a question, get an answer, and you know more at the end than at the beginning.

I still think calling it "Holocaust denial" is hyperbole. After all, questioning their role in habjala is not the same as denying the rest of the campaign, carried out the old fashioned way, now is it? And as the article said, most people died in the old fashioned way. No one questions Saddam's overall campaign vs. the Kurds, not in the way people still question the the Turks actions in 1915.

And folks who deny what happened at Treblinka arent denying what was done by the Sonderkommandos, now are they. Give me a break.

Arguably this denial is worse. Hitler is dead and buried. Saddam isnt.

[lord of the mark]

by the way the fact that this appeared in the New york Times is - well, disgusting. Howel Raines is pulling out the stops evidently. This is far worse than anything hes done thus far. This will break Raines, or the Times, I predict.

[GePap]

I have yet to read someone make the arguments that Treblinka didn't happen but the Soderkommandoes did.

Does Pelletiere (or anyone else) deny all the other cases of regular slaughter by the Iraqis in Kurdistan? If he does, then your annaolygy has some validity. If he doesn't, then your treblinka-Sonderkommando argument is just trite. May I add that if we accept HRW's numbers of 50-100K, then very sadly, what Saddam did in northern Iraq counts among the world's middle campaigns of genocide in the last 50 years: not among its greatest.

[Sandman]

Fair enough about the after effects of the gas, but there are conventional weapons that have similar long-lasting effects. Depleted uranium weapons cause dreadful pollution, whilst landmines continue to maim for decades afterwards.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
I have yet to read someone make the arguments that Treblinka didn't happen but the Soderkommandoes did.

The usual tactic is to deny Treblinka and ignore everything else. Treblinka was a death camp only - not a death/work camp like Auschwitz. Ergo hardly any survivors. Ergo easier to make the deniers case.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
I have yet to read someone make the arguments that Treblinka didn't happen but the Soderkommandoes did.

Does Pelletiere (or anyone else) deny all the other cases of regular slaughter by the Iraqis in Kurdistan? If he does, then your annaolygy has some validity. If he doesn't, then your treblinka-Sonderkommando argument is just trite. May I add that if we accept HRW's numbers of 50-100K, then very sadly, what Saddam did in northern Iraq counts among the world's middle campaigns of genocide in the last 50 years: not among its greatest.

Clearly the scale of the atrocity is different - i wouldnt deny that the holocaust is unique - in fact i would assert that fact against those who relativize it (and not just on grunds of scale)

But the moral issue of memory and denial is paralell.

" Several old women whose husbands were killed by Saddam's security services expressed a kind of animal hatred toward him, but most people, like Nasreen, told stories of horrific cruelty with a dispassion and a precision that underscored their credibility. Credibility is important to the Kurds; after all this time, they still feel that the world does not believe their story.

If you know many holocaust survivors, or have read much about the victims, you will recognize this fear - that what happened to them is too much for people to beleive - when the most urgent thing they want is for it to be known, to be remembered. There's much holocaust literature on this theme - i dont have time to look for it for you now.
"

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman
Fair enough about the after effects of the gas, but there are conventional weapons that have similar long-lasting effects. Depleted uranium weapons cause dreadful pollution, whilst landmines continue to maim for decades afterwards.

I know of no instance of a deliberate campaign of genocide using DU, comparable to Saddams campaing against the Kurds. (and as i am sure you know the effects of DU are disputed, as the effects of these gases are not)

And its at least possible to mark off fields where old landmines are suspected. Children tend to ignore such warnigns and die anyway which is a tragedy (and a motivator behind the campaing to ban landmines, which I hope my govt will take another look at) But its not teh same as the chemicals which leave a legacy in the body even when they are cleaned up, and which are very difficult to clean up, leaving a poisoned land.

[Sandman]

I know of no instance of a deliberate campaign of genocide using DU, comparable to Saddams campaing against the Kurds. (and as i am sure you know the effects of DU are disputed, as the effects of these gases are not)

If DU turns out to have long term polluting effects, then it is no better than gas, regardless of whether it's been used in the past or not, and regardless of whether it's used with the deliberate intention of causing long term harm. I'm not sure Saddam (and other military leaders) really take into account the aftereffects of a particular weapon anyway.

And its at least possible to mark off fields where old landmines are suspected. Children tend to ignore such warnigns and die anyway which is a tragedy (and a motivator behind the campaing to ban landmines, which I hope my govt will take another look at) But its not teh same as the chemicals which leave a legacy in the body even when they are cleaned up, and which are very difficult to clean up, leaving a poisoned land.

Landmines are vile things.

But, you could concievably mark off chemical weapons areas as well. I am not sure if gas remnants are that much more difficult to clean up than landmines, as well.

If one of the worst things about gas is it's low chance of killing and high chance of maiming, would it not be justifiable to try and develop a gas which was 100% lethal?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman


If DU turns out to have long term polluting effects, then it is no better than gas, regardless of whether it's been used in the past or not, and regardless of whether it's used with the deliberate intention of causing long term harm. I'm not sure Saddam (and other military leaders) really take into account the aftereffects of a particular weapon anyway.

Then why did the Iraqi regime work on (and stockpile) Aflatoxin, an agent that has NO short term effects, all of its effects are long term.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman



If one of the worst things about gas is it's low chance of killing and high chance of maiming, would it not be justifiable to try and develop a gas which was 100% lethal?

Kind of academic when all chemical weapons that kill OR maim are already banned under international law.

[Sandman]

Then why did the Iraqi regime work on (and stockpile) Aflatoxin, an agent that has NO short term effects, all of its effects are long term.

This apparently reputable website dismisses the threat from aflatoxin: http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/bw_ii/bw...0-%20Aflatoxin

Kind of academic when all chemical weapons that kill OR maim are already banned under international law.

Yeah, but the reason they were banned originally is because of their maiming ability. Take away (or at least minimise) that maiming ability and you take away the rationale for the ban on chemical weapons.