charnoir wrote;

http://www.deepjournal.com/p/7/a/en/137
html [Snip]
http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/06/17
how-reagan-armed-saddam-with-chemica
-weapons/ [Snip]

So your *fact cites* are from 2 private citizens both with a bias,
agendas, etc and on the fringe of society?


www.deepjournal.com/p/7/a/en/137.html

"Personal meeting between Saddam and
Rumsfeld American poison gas for
Saddam,..."

"American Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld took care of it that American
companies started to deliver poison gas to
Iraq."

It's one person's article that he wrote and posted on his own website.

It is only his *claim* which he doesn't back-up with *facts*, as there
are none to support his two statements or he would have used them.

I could put up a website and claim that Rumsfeld and Saddam were lovers,
that doesn't make it a fact.

Do you not understand the difference?

That man Daan de Wit is intelligent and successful (media, books) in the
Netherlands.

But he is also a conspiracy nut and a 9/11 Truther, you think he's a
good source for you to cite just because it supports what *You* want to
believe?

-------------------------------------------------

And the other *article* you cite as fact, here's a good example of his
*facts* as Bull****.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/06/...mical-weapons/

The article was written by Norm Dixon who writes for Australia's 'Green
Left Weekly'.
"Online version of the progressive newspaper published by the Democratic
Socialist Party (Australia)."
www.greenleft.org.au/

"It is believed that US-supplied choppers
were used in the 1988 chemical attack on
the Kurdish village of Halabja, which killed
5000 people."

"US-supplied choppers" "used" "chemical attack" "killed 5000 people"

That is his *only* mention of how the Halabja attack was carried-out!

Nothing on the French supplied fighter jets [also Russian Migs were seen
by an eyewitness Iranian journalist] that dropped the chemical bombs or
that some *unknown make* of helicopters *just* oversaw the operation.

And you would think that in a military operation the high ranking
commanders like Generals would go into an attack in attack helicopters
vs unarmed civilian ones maybe?

An eyewitness account;

"The five-hour attack began early in the evening of 16 March 1988,
following a series of random attacks using rocket and napalm, when Iraqi
Mirage [FRENCH] aircraft began dropping chemical bombs on Halabja's
residential areas, far from the besieged Iraqi army base on the
outskirts of the town.

An Iraqi aircraft conducted up to 20 bombings in sorties of seven to
eight planes each; HELICOPTERS coordinating the operation were also
seen."

-------------------------------------

The US sold Iraq 60 unarmed civilian use helicopters which were
confiscated during their war by the military for VIP transport.

None were *ever* armed, why do a half-ass foolish attempt to make it
into an attack helicopter when you are already supplied with 2 of the
World's best *ATTACK* helicopters?

Iraq's attack helicopter force was Russian and French.

From the Russians a large number of the Mil-24 Hind *ATTACK*
helicopters *armed* with cannon and missiles and it is reported that
some had chemical weapon sprayers.

From the French a large number of Gazelle *ATTACK* helicopters.

And with the French against International Law suppling spare parts for
their jets and helicopters during the 10 year embargo on Iraq.