Talk:Halabja massacre

Solution
There's only one solution, and that is to remove "by the Iraqi forces" and put something like "it's unclear", or "either by Iranian forces or Iraqi forces". Since the US claim that it was IraN who gassed the civilians, you know what that means? It either means that there's no clear evidence or that it was really Iran. And just because the US is more pro-Iraq than Iran, you can't say oh whoa the US lied and put "gassed by the Iraqi" in the article. You have to put "it's unclear" + that the US is pro-Iraq. And the readers will have to decide what to believe. You know what, I dislike Saddam too, but it's wrong to say that he just gassed the Kurds he's a mass murderer and that's it.

The town was gassed: -By the Iraqi forces because it was seized by the Iranian and pro-Iranian Kurds. -By the Iranian. -By the Iraqi forces in the process of arabization.

I have a feeling it was Iran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XxDestinyxX (talk • contribs) 18:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This BBC article and current source for the page says "However, the majority of evidence indicates that the gas attack was an Iraqi assault against Iranian forces, pro-Iranian Kurdish forces and Halabja's citizens during a major battle." As this appears to be the mainstream viewpoint, the article needs to reflect it. Down below in Talk:Halabja_poison_gas_attack there isn't much of a problem recognized, while you propose a solution. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

US Role
That the US had a key role in facilitating Iraq's chemical weapons program is not in dispute, as the Washington Post article makes clear. Even if chemicals were not directly delivered from the US to Iraq (but they were) the fact remains that the US was knowingly complicit in Iraq's chemical weapons use. Iraq's subsequent disclosure of the sources of its WMDs included many American companies, and in fact the Reagan administration removed Saddam's Iraq from the list of terror nations so as to ease the transfer of the "dual use" technology which it new fully well were being put to military use. Furthermore, as Joost Hiltermann has written, the US's attempt to shift the blame onto Iran was not because "debate existed" on responsibility. In fact, the US tried to shift the blame onto Iran "knowing" that Iraq was responsible. The DIA report that Pellteire relies on was merely disinformation from the time, when the US was backing and supporting Saddam, and it is unfortunate that the anti-war elements in the US have seized upon that faulty report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * Its a fiction that the U.S. is the primary provider of chemicals, no cited article supports that. The reporter who obtained the leaked report even states in the democracy now interview (see ref 3) that the US had a minor role (key?) in providing chemical weapons to iraq. 04:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdthree (talk • contribs)
 * Actually footnotes three and four seem to say that the U.S. was the primary provider of pre-cursor chemicals. Does this article need better footnotes? Or is the article inaccurate and the footnotes correct? BingoDingo (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

84.234.60.154 do not change footnotes or references without discussing it here. Reference four (4) is not a good source. There is no way to verify where the information came from and who created it. Reference four (4) does not jibe with other footnotes and references. Footnotes three (3) and four (4) directly refute the text of the paragraph in this section. Vandalism is suspected. BingoDingo (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for more reasons
From reading this topic, I can't really understand exactly why this attack happened. What was the rationale behind this? Why were chemicals preferred in this attack? (and why a combination of those chemicals?) Also- more sources will be better. --Zybez 18:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for technical accuracy
I concur with the concerns of others, this article is not encyclopedic, or accurate in terms of peer-reviewed evidence and terminology.

What I take most objection to is the opening statement:

'The poison gas attack on the Iraqi town of Halabja was the largest-scale chemical weapons (CW) attack against a civilian population in modern times - if we do not include the Americans using Chemical Weapons (Agent Orange - the effects of which are still being felt on the civilian population) in Vietnam or the more recent use by America of Phosphorous, in Falluja. It began early in the evening of March 16, when a group of eight aircraft began dropping chemical bombs, and the chemical bombardment continued all night.'

The issue here is accuracy in terminology and latent bias. For instance, Agent Orange should not be considered a chemical weapon - it was a DEFOLIATING AGENT. The long-term medical and environmental effects may be judged to be harmful (depending on the source), but the INTENTION of the US military was not to cause mutations or cancer amongst the local inhabitants, but to defoliate sections of dense jungle. This may sound like semantics, but it is simply not accurate to portray Agent Orange as a weaponized chemical substance, with the intended purpose of causing indiscriminate harm to civilians and enemy combatants.

A similar issue applies to White Phosphorous. WP should not be considered a chemical weapon, but an INCENDIARY AGENT. Such agents do not fall within the rubric of the 1925 Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, nor are they addressed by the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention. Whether the US Marine Corps and US Army units engaged in combat in Fallujah in November 2004 intended to cause asphyxiation and chemical burns to enemy combatants and apparent civilian bystanders is a separate issue for discussion.

It would also be useful to have more detailed coverage of the al-Anfal Campaign, a discussion of the relationship between the largely Sunni Ba'ath party, the Kurdish population, and the Peshmergas. In addition, the contrite coverage of Saddam's on-going trial should be addressed in a more professional manner. It is certainly accurate to say that SOME believe the Iraqi tribunals indicting Saddam and other former-regime leaders is a 'show trial', but that is merely one perspective - a more exhaustive portrayal of the gamut of perceptions and legal opinions would be appreciated.

Clearly, more detailed and technically accurate entries for this article are needed...

DCMT_Peterson - 02 June, 2006 - 09:43 GMT, PhD Candidate, Defence Academy of the United Kingdom

What ABSOLUTE and TOTAL GARBAGE. The US military ADMITS that it used phite phosphorous as a military weapon in Fallujah. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm. How much do they pay you to lie? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.169.187 (talk)

And, about "Saddam"'s "trial", first, we have to identify the person in the docket. My understanding is no fingerprints were ever taken, and no composite mug shots ever done. And NO foreign leaders or diplomats have ever visited "Saddam" in custody. There's a pravda article that says that Saddam's wife after meeting the man in custody, yelled that it is not her husband. These are the more serious issues to discuss in this "article". Forget the nonsense reversal of "opinion" over an incident that was thoroughly investigated and reported by both the DIA and the international community and the culprit--albeit accidental--(Iran) established. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.169.187 (talk)

The point being made - quite reasonably - is that white phosphorous as used in the instance you are referencing was not used as a chemical weapon, but as an incendiary, with a specific purpose that was not to poison people. The article you link even says that. No offense, but your second post marks you as incredibly credulous. Witchzenka (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This is hardly an encyclopedic article

 * Not yet, but it is a start and it is on a subject we should be covering. --mav

This article is not NPOV at all. And even worse, it tells mostly lies! It is just propaganda! If you want a NPOV article about Halabja, check and translate the French Wiki article.

For what it is worth, here is a translation (mine SCCarlson 04:07 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC), so all disclaimers apply) of the French article, which may be useful for the article:


 * The term Halabja refers to a battle between Iran and Iraq. It had taken place in the area of Halabja (Iraqi Kurdistan) during the Iran-Iraq war. The two camps have used forbidden combat gas, and the Kurdish civilians, caught between two fires(?) were killed by the gas.  In a population of 80,000 inhabitants, nearly 7,000 people found their death.


 * The massacre of Habalja did not raise protests by the international community in March 1988. At the time, it was admitted that the civilians had been killed "collaterally" due to an error in handling the combat gas. Two years later, when the Iran-Iraq War was finished and the Western powers stopped supporting Saddam Hussein, the massacre of Halabja was attributed to the Iraqis.


 * A classified report by the Army War College showed, in 1990, that this imputation was hardly credible.


 * The Washington Post on May 4, 1990 summarized it in these terms: "The Iranian assertion of March 20, 1990 according to which most of the victims of Halabja have been poisoned by cyanide has been considered a key element . . . . We know that Iraq did not use cyanide gas. We have a very good knowledge of the chemical agents that the Iraqis produced and used, and we know that none of them were made."


 * Recently, Stephen C. Pelletiere, a political analyst for Iraq at the CIA during the Iran-Iraq war and then professor at the Army War College who participated in the editing of the report, recalled in the New York Times that the massacre of Halabja was a war crime, probably committed by the Iranian army, and not a crime against humanity commited by the Iraqi army. And, in any case, it is not about the deliberate assassination of civilian populations.

This whole article is just two quotes! Someone needs to write something - number of casualties, reasons for the attack, etc. I don't know anything about it myself but this is a sad article and probably should just be deleted and started over. Rmhermen 04:35 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)


 * Feel free to incorporate the material above I translated from the French article. I don't know enough about the incident to distingish spin from reality in the French article, but maybe you do.  SCCarlson 03:37 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

I have added a lot of info. Most of the important facts were missing from previous article. Also, I have seen no report from an 'extensive investigation' by HRW. Pelletiere's position was misrepresented. He does not say Iran was responsible. All he says is that the DIA concluded that Iran was responsible and that the Bush administration was ignoring it. I added the Rangwala CASI post, which makes the best case for why Iraq was indeed likely responsible, including much detailed information.

The CASI post and army war college report are the two central pieces of information regarding the incident available to the public, and certainly Rangwala's post is invaluable.

Certainly a lot of detailed info can be extracted from Rangwala's CASI post and the Army War College report, both now linked to, and it would probably be helpful. In particular, a detailed discussion of the different conclusions regarding what chemicals were used would probably be helpful. It could also use some cleaning up, specifically linking to other wikipedia articles, but it's new year's eve and I don't really have time right now. Let's try to keep it NPOV :) 24.12.189.24 23:03, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article as it stands appears to be advocating Ringwala's reasoning, which is full of leaps. Also the characterisation of the Bush administration's position as a "prevailing view" seems whiggish in the extreme. The prevailing view appears to be controversy and skepticism, rather than a partisan position. Aminorex 17:24, 03 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This article will not become emotional crap.
The recent edits by "Duncanburrell" excluding every contentious point of the Halabja incident were unacceptable. Its reformatting was terrible, its historicity and critical evaluations razed, and its excellent photograph replaced with one of far less victims, presumably for an "image of one dead kid" effect. Further editing of this article should not be made without discussion on the talk page. I fail to see anything about its current version in need of change. Shem 16:47, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I wrote the 'contentious crap', and I take great objection to the alterations made backwards in this article. I have spent a lot of time dealing with this incident and it certainly is not propaganda. This included a visit to Halabja itself. The assertion that Halabja was purely an accidental massacre during an Iran-Iraq battle has been repeatedly disproven. It contradicts not only a mountain of evidence accumulated by the United Nations, journalists, and various human rights groups, but also the testimony of Stephen Pelletiere, former chief of the CIA's Iraq desk. United Nations reports from 1986, 1987, and 1988 confirm (based in part on reports from Iraqi soldiers who had been taken prisoner) that Iraq used mustard gas and nerve agents on Kurds during the Iran-Iraq war and that these killed a large number of civilians. In 1993, Physicians for Human Rights found evidence of nerve agents in soil samples in the Kurdish village of Birjinni and cited Kurdish eyewitnesses who said that one day in August 1988, they saw Iraqi warplanes drop bombs emitting "a plume of black, then yellowish smoke" and that shortly thereafter villagers "began to have trouble breathing, their eyes watered, their skin blistered, and many vomited—some of whom died. All of these symptoms are consistent with a poison gas attack." The March 24 New Yorker carries a lengthy account by Jeffrey Goldberg of Iraq's systematic gassing of the Kurdish population, based on extensive eyewitness interviews that Goldberg conducted in Halabja and other Kurdish-controlled areas in Northern Iraq. None of those interviewed seem to doubt that it was Saddam Hussein's army that gassed them. The article at http://middleeastreference.org.uk/halabja.html decisively dismisses the theory that Iran was responsible for the Halabja attacks. I am afraid that part of the problem with the nature of this incident is that descriptions are sketchy, but neither I, nor Colin Powell when he commemorated the incident at Halabja in September 2003, believe that this was an accident. Can we please alter this article to reflect slightly more the incredibility of sources who claim the whole incident is a hoax, and refrain from linking the incident with anti-American sentiments. Part of the problem is that these Iran responsibility claims were originally put about by the US at the time, as it was then a major supporter of Saddam's government.


 * You misread, anon. I called your edits emotional crap, because they remove every contentious point concerning the Halabja incident.  The long-standing consensus version of this article does not describe it as an accident, and makes such very clear.  You've tried fitting in as many emotive terms as possible into your version, and editing an article because "it is offensive to those that died" (as expressed in your last edit summary) is a blatant NPOV violation.  I try to assume good faith when editing, but it seems fairly obvious that you're out create an extremely selective presentation of the Halabja incident.


 * The article does not paint Halabja as "an accident," nor does it claim Halabja was an "accidental massacre." You are creating a deliberate strawman of an long-standing Wikipedia article, and are greatly misrepresenting the current version's content and context.  Your claims to have "been to Halabja" are of no consequence here (this is the internet, you know), and you willingly admit the historical ambiguity of what took place (regardless of what you and Colin Powell supposedly "believe").  Your link is a dubious source, but regardless, the article's consensus version does fully cover that the incident may have well been a Ba'athist action, but also notes the other possibilities and historical context.


 * I also can't help but note that you continue deleting the article's mention of America's support of Saddam, and poor record when this incident took place. Please cease mass-deletion of this article's content and NPOV editing. Shem 04:02, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Just so I'm clear: I stand that this article is in no need of change whatsoever, in its current form, and has been an excellent piece of Wikipedia consensus for well over six months.  It is your burden, anon, to explain why this article needs revision (or as you've become fond of, half-deletion). Shem 04:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are several reasons why I think this 'entry' is inaccurate and biased I shall list them below. Frankly the fact that it has existed unaltered for 6 months just shows the incompetence of certain aspects on the wikipedia site. As for calling my sources dubious, somehow implying that other sources are much more reliable I'm sorry it's just laughable. Yes I will admit to ambiguity but not ambiguity to the extent that I can concede that it was a US ploy (by the way HRW has not extensively investigated Halabja, they are closely linked to the US government and warded off of doing so). 1) All credible accounts site Iraq as responsible it is a conspiracy theory to site Iran's responsibility. 2) As I have previously stated both Iran and Iraq received economic and military assistance from the United States. This factor has little to do with who was responsible for lobbing chemical weapons at the Kurds. 3)Yes the US state dept did originally blame Iran. It was a tragic mistake, and one that Colin Powell, in fact most secretaries of state since have sought to distance themselves from. 4)Mr Pelletiere is one of a series of gentlemen to make an awful lot of money of of denying official positions (see Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Persian Gulf). You will no doubt have read his New York Times article in which he postulates what you have stated. The CIA has made terrible mistakes in the past, indeed they may even have assisted in supplying the poisons to Saddam, but I'm afraid your suggestion that Mr Pelletiere's position is the position of the CIA is quite quite wrong. Your account is, in fact, very similar to one put forward by al-Jazeera in which they say "It is a fact that key Kurdish leaders aided by the CIA and the Israeli Mossad have used wide network of public relation companies and media outlets in the west to manipulate and twist the truth of what happened in Kurdish Halabja in 1988 in favour of the political Kurdish parties", this is not fact this is gerrymandering the information to suit your own interpretation. Interviews by International Human Rights Groups (this does include HRW here) with scores of Halabja survivors reveal no such confusions about who deployed the weapons several referred to aircraft flying "low enough for their markings to be legible". The DIA report did indeed refer to the fact that Iraq deployed HCN, Sarin, Tabun, VX and afloxin in previous attacks on Iranian forces. The report you site is in fact onw taken by Mr Pelletiere to proove his point. The conclusion of the final DIA Halabja report stated that "the far more plausible story is that Halabja was part of a concerted effort to settle the Kurdish problem once and for all, and to deal a punishing blow for their support of Iranian forces" (Oct 24th 1988) 5)To suggest that the 'Campaign against Sanctions' is a complete and extensive source, is, I'm afraid once again laughable. Their title says it all. Mr Rangwala is welcome to his theories, but this is not a credible source. There is little or no evidence to support the theory postulated here in conclusion that Halabja was an attack on Iranian Forces, or that it was an attack by Iranian forces. Quite contrary to the dismissal of the source I directed people towards. The American record on Halabja may be, as many sources have suggested shameful, but this is not an excuse for a category of false accusations in a summary of Halabja. Quite contrary to the beliefs expressed above it is also, I believe, quite essential that the grizzly reality of this event be properly represented on this site. I am deeply concerned at the fact that I have found quotes from this site used to justify dismissal of Halabja on other websites. The biggest problem with Pelletiere's argument is that Saddam went on to kill another 100,000 Kurds even well after the war was over, and he did use chemical weapons in a lesser scale then also. It is quite inconceivable to suggest that the denizens of the countless villages which Saddam's forces killed and razed, were all involved with the Iranian military. By rights extrapelating from that evidence it is, surely, wholey reasonable to suggest that he did it thereafter again and again and again, so why deny he carried out the actions he did at Halabja?


 * Anonymous, you talk loads, and link very, very little. That you have again moved (without discussion) to remove contentious points from this article, especially points concerning America with an excuse like "America has nothing to do with why someone lobbed weapons at the Kurds," is extremely poor editing.  Also, why don't you register for and edit under an account, so we can keep track of contributions should this article's editing become too disputed? Shem 05:11, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have made my points quite clear above I did not write "lobbing" into the main article. Frankly registering for an account seems to me to be a way so that certain individuals can control what they want to appear on the site - defeats the point of wikipedia doesn't it? The editing is already disputed I question at least half the content on the page you have just reinserted, you may use a lot of sources but their credibility is more than dubious. If this article stays as it is it will need a 'disputed article' comment like for the Bush article. Proudly Annonymous

This remains an inaccurate and unbalance account of the events at Halabja. It is too scathing about the position which says that it was a deliberate attack by Saddam's forces as part of a concerted effort to reduce the Kurdish population, for which there is much evidence, and which is supported by most Western governments, and dwells far too much on reports from the angry former official Stepehn Pelletiere, the Campaign Against Sanctions, whose connections with Saddam's regime have been questioned (Mr Rangwala completed a degree on political and legal rhetoric in the Middle East, has strong ties with various Palestinian organisations, and wrote a book entitled Iraq and Nuclear weapons, I think therefore he cannot be relied upon as an unbiased source). The DIA assessment quoted is not the final appraisal of the situation, it was never the definite CIA stance or verdict, certainly the statement does not reflect current thinking in the CIA. Finally the conclusion to this article is not one most analysts would currently draw from any of the evidence currently available in its total dismissal of the opposing viewpoint. If this article cannot be made more balanced or accusatory it should not be here at all.

For your reference there follows an official account by the HRW of the Halabja incident (available at http://hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/ANFAL3.htm, which although it admits there was an ongoing confrontation between Iran and Iraq at the time is quite explicit: The Iraqi counterattack began in the mid-morning of March 16, with conventional airstrikes and artillery shelling from the town of Sayed Sadeq to the north. Most families in Halabja had built primitive air-raid shelters near their homes. Some crowded into these, others into the government shelters, following the standard air-raid drills they had been taught since the beginning of the Iran-Iraq War in 1980. The first wave of air strikes appears to have included the use of napalm or phosphorus. "It was different from the other bombs," according to one witness. "There was a huge sound, a huge flame and it had very destructive ability. If you touched one part of your body that had been burned, your hand burned also. It caused things to catch fire." The raids continued unabated for several hours. "It was not just one raid, so you could stop and breathe before another raid started. It was just continuous planes, coming and coming. Six planes would finish and another six would come."28

Those outside in the streets could see clearly that these were Iraqi, not Iranian aircraft, since they flew low enough for their markings to be legible. In the afternoon, at about 3:00, those who remained in the shelters became aware of an unusual smell. Like the villagers in the Balisan Valley the previous spring, they compared it most often to sweet apples, or to perfume, or cucumbers, although one man says that it smelled "very bad, like snake poison." No one needed to be told what the smell was.

This article does not properly reflect this account of events

This so-called "Article" is nothing but Baathist propaganda.
For god's sake, has somebody been reading David Irving's holocaust denial strategy notes?

Trying to shift the blame for Chemical Ali's attack on the unarmed civilians of Halabja, is a vicious affront to the people of Kurdistan. Whoever wrote this tripe should be ashamed of himself.
 * Because turning it into a piece of American propaganda is so much better, and milking the plight of the Kurds (which American ultimately aided) as pro-invasion tokenism isn't shameful. Spare us the false outrage (plus invoking Hitler and the holocaust, how original!), and don't count on that NPOV tag going anywhere so long as you anonymous revisionists are coming out of the woodwork.
 * And yes, "incident" is the correct term. Your inflammatory rhetoric won't be conducive to any constructive editing on this article, nor will I assume (or edit in) good faith with anon's so willing to throw David Irving's name at those not sharing their blatantly deliberate editing agenda.

" Iranian forces, pro-Iranian Kurdish forces and Halabja's citizens"
That's all three listed, anonymous kids. Any attempt to remove mention of either Iranian forces or the pro-Iranian Kurds will be reverted.

this article is pure baathi propaganda. the halabja INCIDENT??? excuse me??? shall we talk also about the september 11th INCIDENT??? I wonder what the americans would think... for your info there was no iranian forces in halabja, and the peshmergas had fled to the mountains LONG BEFORE the attack even happened. qualifying of this as "incident" is highly offensive. I'm removing this word and if you revert it I will revert it back. I suggest you try to understand the words NPOV don't mean NEGATIONNISM of a genocide RECOGNIZED BY INTERNATIONAL LAWS. I'm also removing stephen pelletiere's link as he is a NEGATIONNIST and this crime is punishable by law.

- Kassem 19:36, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
 * You are deliberately violating NPOV in this article, Kassem. And yes, it is an incident, but the article is titled attack.  Your heated rhetoric and casual invocation of September 11th will not carry weight when editing.

Erroneous Claims that the United States supplied CWs to Iraq
I fixed the false claim that the U.S. provided CWs to Iraq. This is far from the case. I can't find a shred of evidence that the U.S. has ever supplied CWs to any other state (NATO countries decades ago might be exception, no information either way).

The U.S. did supply CW precursors to Iraq on two occasions. The first shipment of DMMP from Al-Haddad was almost certainly used to make nerve gas in Iraq. However, this was by no means an expression of U.S. policy. Al-Haddad was almost certainly an Iraqi front company. After the DMMP shipment, another shipment of chemicals from Al-Haddad to Iraq was stopped at JFK. That shipment may have been potassium fluoride, a low value, quite common chemical. Other reports indicate that the JFK shipment was phosphorous fluoride, a very useful nerve gas precursor. Internet sources differ on this point and it is possible to find single articles that contains both claims.

In 1988, a Baltimore company, Alcolac supplied thioglycol to Iraq. While thioglycol has many legitimate uses, it is likely that Iraq used this precursor to manufacture mustard gas. The company was prosecuted for violating U.S. export control law.

There is considerable wealth of information about the extremely limited role the United States played in providing CW precursors to Iraq and the extensive efforts of the United States to interdict this trade globally. If anyone is interested I can provide many data points and sources.
 * Oh yes, its much nicer that it only supplied so-called "duel use" technology and material and encouraged its allies to do the same, totally innocent, no culpability, et cetera. LamontCranston 01:59, 02 April 2006 (UTC)

A matter of who made them,or why they were made?
A question.Aren't chemical weapons (or at least gases) are easy to manufacture with today's industry?Considering its truly atrocious and disgusting usage,I believe its a matter of "why did these democratic Western power even allow Iraq" to use it to terrorize the poor Kurdish villagers and rouse a dark hatred which is "incidentally"(SURPRISE!) exploited by the United States today,instead of "omigawd,the A faction gave Iraq the precursors for chemical weapons!"?

I believe the NATO forces and the US allowed the moron,two-bit dictator Saddam to use it against the Kurds to have the Kurdish people as a "puppet card" in the near future.I smell a small-scale conspiracy here.Saddam could be easily deposed during this time with a pre-emptive Gulf War,allowing friendlier relations even with Iran,by taking out their bitter enemy.Wouldn't you agree?--Turkish Legacy 20:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

You're rambling; just punching air. The coalition left Saddam in power in 1991 with the addition of no-fly zones because of massacres like Halabja.

Fixes for some serious errors
The article contained the statement

"Some debate continues, however, over the question of whether Iraq was really the responsible party, perhaps stemming from well supported claims that the United States supplied chemical weapons to Iraq"

There are at least two problems with this. First, there is no evidence that the U.S. has ever provided chemical weapons to *any* other country, much less Iraq. If anyone can contradict this statement with a serious source, please do so. Second, the article actually says

"While the United States never supplied full-fledged chemical weapons to Iraq, it did provide chemical and biological agents such as anthrax and sarin gas".

I don't see how you can claim that the U.S. provided chemical weapons and then say that the United States never supplied "full-fledged chemical weapons". Of course, this sentence has other problems as well. Sarin is a "full-fledged chemical weapon". So the sentence contradicts itself. Of course, the U.S. never supplied Sarin to Iraq.

A U.S. company did sell an Anthrax sample to Iraq in the 1980s. However, this was far from an expression of U.S. policy. At that time, anyone could buy Anthrax samples. Indeed, controls on the Anthrax cultures were not introduced until many years later after a white supremacist purchased Anthrax in 1995.

Thank you

Peter Schaeffer

The Iran Connection.
I've noticed some here have made references to the original claims at the time it happened that the Iranians were responsible, so here is the New York Times article from 2003 that went over it:

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60816FC3D5C0C728FDDA80894DB404482

And a free reproduction that does not require registration or money:

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/a_war_crime_or_an_act_of_war.htm [there are no doubt other places to find it, this was simply the first one I came across, so if you don't like the site then just look elsewhere for it]

Now if it is true that "for reasons of state" the US & its allies who supported Saddam during the 1980s 'fudged' the facts about the original gassing to defend a 'needed ally' then to anyone’s knowledge have they admitted this and apologised to the victims that survived, the families of the victims that died and the US public? If not, then how can their pronouncements re: Halabja since the 2000s be believed? LamontCranston 14:09, 02 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ive added material pertaining to this question.--Zereshk 20:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Request of proof
That there was actually a DIA study that said the U.S. supplied hydrogen cyanide to Iraq. If no one comes forward, I will remove this in 1 week. CJK 23:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It's just as credible that in an effort to justify its pre-planned attack on Iraq, the US government turned around and claimed that it was NO LONGER Iran, but Iraq, that gassed the Kurds. Once a liar, always a liar. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.169.187 (talk)

Popular culture references: OK?
Not sure whether it's appropriate to add pop culture references to this page. Proposed add'n:

In early 1988, the industrial band Skinny Puppy recorded the album VIVIsectVI, which contains the song "VX Gas Attack", whose lyrics offer pointed reference to the Halabja gas attack (though not by name).

"at ground zero pro independence heavier than air fumes city of chemical alleged cyanide gas ... like scalding water a side effect of their faces and lungs burn a sudden harsh smell 2 weeks after still coughing and choking livid skin blisters burn often ... the dead were among porcelain face of cloud of frozen gas poison..." footnote

Zillyons 03:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

What dropped the chemicals?
Toward the beginning, in the Discovery section, this article states that bombs were dropped by Mig-23 fighter bombers, then toward the end it says the US supplied dual use helicopters which sprayed the chemicals. The Guardian article linked as note 1 says it was dropped by Mirage bombers. Does anyone have a link to an article with the correct aircraft involved, whether bombs or aerosol spray was used. Thank you. Dual Freq 23:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * After reading the items in the external links section, I'm leaning toward pulling the helicopter portion. The links seem to indicate bombs were used, not aerial spraying. Link for that sentence is dead so I can't tell what the editor was meaning by placing that there. I'll add a citation needed for now, but if there is no disagreement it probably needs to be removed. Still the question remains, Russian made MIG or French made Mirage. Dual Freq 23:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If the planes were low enough to see the markings, then one of the witnesses must have noticed what type of plane it was - the Kurds are experts in weaponry. Pellitiere has not been refuted as far as I have heard - the CIA may have changed there position, unless only the final report the Pres saw was changed ( not the CIA's report). This article seems to have all the factuality of a Holocaust report. One of the fishiest parts of the whole event is the refusal to charge Saddam. If the government is so sure then charge him, otherwise they should shut up - dig up the 100,000s, autopsy the bodies or shut up.

Use of graphic images
The images on this page are pretty graphic. I know some wikipedians would argue "it happened so deal with it", but I don't believe the images are all necessary. Certainly I feel they warrant a strong warning. I'm referring particularly to the picture of the two children. -- Tomhab 11:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you think of the warning I added?raptor 10:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The pictures are mild compared to many published pictures. They are extremely mild compared to unpublished pictures I have seen.

WP:MilHist Assessment
I cannot vouch for (or against) the accuracy of this article, and I will not presume to. Since discussion would seem to indicate that some POV and accuracy issues remain, I am placing this at Start-class and not B-class. Nevertheless, it is of a fair length (more could be added), includes pictures, and a great number of sources and external links. It is also quite beneficial that sections are included describing not only the event itself but investigations and responses. LordAmeth 13:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Substitute outdated reference
The SIPRI pdf referenced is no longer reachable at the original reference, and searches on the (reorganised) site do not find a match. Have substituted an SIPRI briefing by the same author on what looks like the correct subject, but I cannot access the original document to verify the match. Can anybody familiar with the original article check that the substitution is satisfactory, I'm way out of my subject matter experience :) --Shoka 20:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Battle
I just corrected the battle infobox a bit, but I think the ground battle should be either described here or in the separate article (Battle of Halabja maybe). Also, the recaptured city was systematically destroyed by Iraqi forces in accordance to the Anfal rules (while the bodies were left to rot).

More pictures needed
--84.234.60.154 (talk) 08:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Attack ? Is a real Massacre
I can't understant why this article was simply named like Halabja poison gas attack ? This article must redirected under The Halabja Massacre. Please dear authors, we must respect these conditions of the Kurdistan.

Why a massacre ? I don't discuss but i invite you to read these articles |The Halabja Massacre -- 21:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridvano (talk • contribs)

Because "poison gas attack" it was. See also Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway for example. --Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Published Iranian involvement
I was asked on my talk page to discuss reports of Iranian involvement, as concern was raised that I may be pushing a minority viewpoint by placing this perspective in the lead. The publications I am aware of that mention this rely on former C.I.A. official Stephen C. Pelletiere. I have cited his correspondence as a source from The New York Review of Books. His main publication appears to be published under Carlisle Barracks, Pa.: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, 1990, Iraqi Power and U.S. Security in the Middle East. On page 52 it states "Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack, even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemicals in this operation, and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds." Pelletiere wrote an op-ed in the NYT in 2003, going into some detail. He says he was "the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, [so he] was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf." He also mentions a classified D.I.A. report. These three sources are the ones I am aware of that discuss this issue. While only three sources, he has been published in serious sources, making me think his view is "weighty", and not a minority one. -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This paywalled Peace Review article states "This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town..." from a google search. The article cites Pelletiere 2003. -Shootbamboo (talk) 02:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the lead could have something like this. While "the majority of evidence indicates that the gas attack was an Iraqi assault against Iranian forces," some reports maintain Iranian gas could have also been lethal to Kurds.(And maybe the Peace Review article). Otherwise "some reports" could be replaced with ex-C.I.A. official Stephen C. Pelletiere. -Shootbamboo (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting this discussion. There were articles in the Washington Post early on that said that Iranian chemical weapons were also used, I think the claim was that Iraq didn't have any cyanide-based chemical weapons so it must have been the Iranians, as there was evidence from how people died that indicated the use of cyanide. The counter-suspicion was that as the US was more pro-Iraq than pro-Iran, the accusations against Iran were not very reliable. I think it is only Pelletiere who now argues that Iran used chemical weapons at Halabja. I've not read huge amounts on this, but Joost Hiltermann's book published by the CUP, A Poisonous Affair: America, Iraq, and the Gassing of Halabja, seems like one of the the best accounts. Hiltermann in an article says that:"'Within a week of the attack, the United States department of state, basing itself on information provided by the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA), claimed that Iran had also used poison gas in Halabja. This information created enough confusion that the United Nations Security Council delayed a resolution for two months and then condemned both sides for using chemical weapons. The DIA's account was augmented two years later by a former CIA analyst, Stephen Pelletiere, who suggested, using the same DIA data, that the majority of Halabja casualties had been victims of Iran's use of gas. Pelletiere has repeated his claim on numerous occasions, but has never presented any evidence in addition to the vague speculations made by the DIA at the time'" and "When Iraqi planes gassed Halabja, the embarrassment potential was such that Washington went into disinformation overdrive. It took a week before the rhetorical counter-attack was ready for public display, but it was spectacularly successful. By suggesting deviously and on the basis of the flimsiest evidence that not only Iraq but also Iran had used gas in Halabja, State Department spokesmen lifted the onus off the Iraqis. Declassified cables show that US diplomats were then instructed to propagate this myth and dodge the “What’s the evidence” question with the stock “Sorry, but that’s classified information” response. They found a receptive audience. After all, why should anyone care? By taking American hostages, sponsoring the bombings and kidnappings carried out by Hizballah, and threatening the Middle East with an Islamic makeover on the Khomeini model, Iran had found itself in the international doghouse. Security Council Resolution 612 (May 3, 1988) condemning the Halabja atrocity came a long two months after the event and cast its disapproval on both governments in equal measure. In the final analysis, the only evidence for the convenient claim that Iran used chemical weapons during the war is that the US government said so. Somehow, this sufficed." Writing in Dissent Magazine, Leo Casey says:"'[A] 1988 DIA report suggest[ed] that Iran, not Iraq, was responsible for the use of poison gas at Halabja. This report, and a subsequent Army War College study and book incorporating its argument, provide one single piece of evidentiary conjecture for placing responsibility on the Iranians: film and eyewitness reports of the dead at Halabja indicated that their mouths and extremities had turned blue, and such symptoms were consistent with exposure to blood agents using cyanide, which, it was argued, only the Iranians were known to use. None of the authors of these documents, the most notable of whom was Stephen Pelletiere, the senior CIA political analyst of Iraq during the Anfal campaign and later professor at the Army War College, had any expertise in medical and forensic sciences, and their speculation doesn't stand up to minimal scrutiny. To begin, it is not true that Iran alone used blood agent weapons. A 1991 DIA report concluded that 'Iraq is known to have employed . . . a blood agent, hydrogen cyanide gas... against Iranian soldiers, civilians, and Iraqi Kurdish civilians.'"The WSJ said that:"'it's almost as if a humble Holocaust denier had won public praise from Adolf Eichmann himself.' One wonders if the editors of the Times feel ashamed today of having published Pelletiere's apologia." My observation (useless for editing the article, of course) is that it is ironic that what was apparently US government propaganda in 1990 was recycled and used to try to diminish the case for the war on Iraq in 2003, and that by 2003 the US was only too happy to state that Iraq did use chemical weapons at Halabja. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. We definitely have some material here worth incorporating. For what it's worth, I observed in Pelletiere's book that he advocated improving relations with Iraq, in contrast to what he observed coming from the U.S. Congress. -Shootbamboo (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

genocide
I reverted an addition of the word genocide in the first sentence. Should the term genocide be one of the first words used? The lead mentions that Iraqi Kurds have officially recognized it as a genocide. If this is the only group that has done so, and other countries and international (whatever part of the UN that is into this kind of thing, for example) groups haven't, then it seems obvious to me that we would not rush to use the word in the first sentence. -Shootbamboo (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested Move from Halbja poison gas attack to Halabja Massacre

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: strong consensus not to move. I believe this is in accordance with policy and guidelines, but I'd also refer both sides to WP:PRECISION. Andrewa (talk) 12:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Halabja poison gas attack → Halabja Massacre – I've known this particular time of history as "Halabja Massacre" in various languages, English included. A quick search establishes that the name "Halabja Massacre" is more common. It's used 223 times in Book searches and 60 times in Scholar searches. On the other hand, the current name is only used 34 times in Book searches and 18 times in Scholar searches. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep but create Halabja Massacre as a redirect to it. The presetn title is more precise.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep precise name. Massacre is too general.--Aliwiki (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - "Halabja poison gas attack ın March of 1988 with up to 15 thousand deaths" is much more precise but luckily that's not the most common name, neither "Halabja poison gas attack" is. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I once posted an extensive collection of external links, it;s still there but should be re-used - as sources
As references, while expanding the article. --Niemti (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

paragraph regarding US intelligence aiding Iraq
There is a paragraph regarding US intelligence aiding Iraq which currently begins "In August 2013, Foreign Policy charged..." that is under the heading "Allegations of Iranian involvement" (clearly a wrong heading for this particular paragraph). I attempted to create a new heading under controversies "United States accomplice" which was reverted without explanation. If a better one can be written, it would be appreciated. -  Steve3849 talk  16:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "United States [was an] accomplice" in the Iraqi defense of Basra. Learn2read, kthx. --Niemti (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Learn to read?? Really? "kthx." If you think "Allegations of Iranian involvement" is the proper heading for this paragraph, then the entire section needs rewrite because the providing of intelligence is not a secondary topic to allegations against Iran. -  Steve3849 talk  17:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It's about the CIA knowledge and the extent of it (to the point of them actually sharing their own intel with the Iraqis, which intel was allegedly used for planning the sarin attacks at Basra front for maximum effect). Learn2read, k? --Niemti (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

When did the US change its official position?
This article says that the US changed its position on the attack in the late 1990ies and used it as a justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But I have a book by the famous journalist John Pilger which says they started using it after Saddam attacked Kuwait:

"When the late Saddam Hussein was in power and being courted and armed to the teeth by "us", notably with the technology to build weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi Kurds massacred by him were slow news. When, in 1988, Saddam attacked the Kurdish village of Halabja with nerve gas, killing five thousand people, the British and American governments did their best to discourage coverage of the atrocity; the Americans went as far as blaming it on Iran.

However, in 1991, when Saddam displeased his sponsors in Washington and London by attacking another of their clients, Kuwait, and was now an official enemy, the plight of Iraqi Kurds suddenly became a great charitable cause in the West. Headlines and TV footage were lavished on them. They were made worthy victims. This change of status did not apply to the Kurds across the border in Turkey, even though they were part of the same dispossessed nation and were being slaughtered in far greater number by the Turkish military. The Ankara regime is a member of NATO and beneficiary of Anglo-American, World Bank and IMF "aid". Indeed, at the height of the Turkish Kurds' agony, the Turkish military received $8 billion worth of American gifts of tanks, planes, helicopters and ships."

https://books.google.com/books?id=grcb3zchpwYC

(p. 16-17)

Shall we include that in the article?

First the US War College claims both sides used gas but the deaths in this particular attack were from a gas only used by the Iranians. Now we have a completely different gas --- someone is lying. 2601:181:8000:D6D0:797A:E601:41C9:67F2 (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Halabja chemical attack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927204810/http://www.indexonline.org/en/news/articles/2003/2/a-committed-defender-of-free-expression.shtml to http://www.indexonline.org/en/news/articles/2003/2/a-committed-defender-of-free-expression.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Halabja chemical attack. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111118203516/http://dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=487 to http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=487

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Van Anraat
This needs to be reworded - the Court did find that the regime committed genocide but this is dicta - the ruling acquits Van Anraat on genocide charges because the Court determined that he did not meet the specific intent requirement for the crime of genocide. He was convicted of "complicity in violations of the laws and customs of war" and sentenced to 15 years in prison. Seraphimsystem (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Halabja chemical attack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713135718/http://karygiannismp.com/spip/article.php3?id_article=1345 to http://karygiannismp.com/spip/article.php3?id_article=1345
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090116181619/http://www.france24.com/en/20080316-iraqi-kurds-mourn-victims-halabja-gas-attack-iraq-halabja%26navi%3DMOYEN-ORIENT to http://www.france24.com/en/20080316-iraqi-kurds-mourn-victims-halabja-gas-attack-iraq-halabja%26navi%3DMOYEN-ORIENT

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Halabja chemical attack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130420210843/http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/iran/iran-chemical-1998.html to http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/iran/iran-chemical-1998.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708144240/http://www.chilick.com/index.php?page=photographer%2Fsearch%2Fshow_detail_pgrapher.php&id=526&p=&num=2&lang_id=en&flag_la=1&char=j to http://www.chilick.com/index.php?page=photographer%2Fsearch%2Fshow_detail_pgrapher.php&id=526&p=&num=2&lang_id=en&flag_la=1&char=j

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

OR/SYNTH
SeriousSam11 recently added the following bolded text, which I have reverted: Jean Pascal Zanders of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)'s Chemical and Biological Warfare Project dismissed the allegations, pointing out among other things that "The coloring of the victims is more suggestive of sarin, which was in Iraq's arsenal," although Iraq's ability to produce tabun means that it also could have produced hydrogen cyanide. '''However, Zanders' claim depends on the assertion that blue discoloration is not symptomatic of cyanide-based agents, which contradicts elementary medical knowledge. Zanders' case also depends on the assumption that Iraq may have produced and employed cyanide-based agents. However, this supposition is refuted by observation and thorough inspection of Iraq's chemical weapons program through the Iran-Iraq War, UN inspections during the sanctions period, and the post-invasion search for weapons of mass destruction.''' SeriousSam11 cites the following sources to "refute" Zanders on Halabja: You will notice that none of those sources mention Zanders or Halabja—rather, SeriousSam11 is synthesizing his own reading of medical research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and of a United Nations (UN) report on Iraq's WMD (which contains no mention of cyanide) in order to advance his own original argument that Zanders is wrong on Halabja. OR by way of SYNTH is both fundamentally unverifiable and suffers from a more pernicious problem; namely, that different editors could easily abuse the same primary sources to support the opposite POV. For example, I could have proposed the following text: Zanders's analysis is supported by a 2006 UN report, which states that "Iraq declared an overall production of some 3,850 tons of chemical agents" including "approximately 3,300 tons of mustard gas and the nerve agents tabun and sarin or a sarin/cyclosarin mixture." Consistent with Zanders's analysis, the CDC notes that "Tabun is destroyed by bleaching powder, but the reaction produces cyanogen chloride" (a form of cyanide). Of course, I'm not arguing that Zanders is entirely correct in every detail of his 2001 analysis; we've obviously learned more about Iraq's WMD program since the 2003 invasion. (Certainly, I've never argued that Iraq actually weaponized cyanide, just because it had the capability to do so—and one doesn't have to believe that it did in order to explain any cyanide symptoms observed at Halabja.) I'm not even particularly wedded to Zanders as a source, although (as mentioned previously) the reasons that SeriousSam11 gave for removing him were non-credible. That said, SeriousSam11 is not in the canon of reliable sources—his own analysis cannot be used to refute Zanders in the absence of reliable secondary sources that explicitly do the same.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

BTW, let's take a closer look at SeriousSam11's OR claims: And that's just the tip of the iceberg: Simply put, SeriousSam11's OR is not well-founded. It's best to stick with top-quality academic sources published by the likes of Cambridge University Press, rather than relying on one Wikipedia editor's personal opinions. (I continue to doubt that Iraq actually employed cyanide on the battlefield, if only because, as all of the relevant peer-reviewed literature attests, "Cyanide has an undeserved reputation as a good warfare agent. Its LCt50 is large, and exposures slightly below the lethal Ct cause few effects. Its high volatility means that effective concentrations are difficult to achieve on the battleground, and that even high concentrations cannot be maintained for more than a few minutes in the open air.")TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * SeriousSam11: "However, Zanders' claim depends on the assertion that blue discoloration is not symptomatic of cyanide-based agents, which contradicts elementary medical knowledge."
 * Hiltermann 2007: "Moreover, the suggestion that blue extremities point to death by cyanide has been challenged by experts. A bluish discoloration of the skin and extremities of cadavers—lips and fingertips, in particular—is called 'cyanosis' (from the Greek kyanosis, dark blue), a condition caused by lack of oxygen in the blood. Apart from a shared etymological origin, there is no direct relationship between cyanosis and cyanide. Blueness may be an indicator of cyanide, but according to experts it could just as easily suggest the use of a nerve agent. 'Cyanosis in the peripheries,' Dr. Alistair Hay, a professor of environmental toxicology at the University of Leeds, wrote in an e-mail (2002), 'is simply caused by poor oxygen perfusion. So if your heart, or your lungs, are not working properly you can become cyanosed. It is not diagnostic of cyanide poisoning. Nerve agents could affect heart function resulting in cyanosis.' Dr. Frederick Sidell, a former chief of the Chemical Casualty Care Office of the US Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland, concurred. When asked what pictures of dead people with blue lips suggested to him, he responded (interview, 2000), 'It would only indicate they are dead. You can't tell anything from blue lips. Somebody with a heart attack might have blue lips. Nerve gas also causes blue lips, because it blocks the lungs and airways, and thereby the oxygen supply, a condition called cyanosis.' Could cyanide gas cause blue lips? Cyanide, he said, 'normally would cause reddish skin and reddish lips—cherry red, in fact. But not in all cases.' ... If the cyanosis that occurred in the Halabja victims indicated nerve gas rather than cyanide, the obvious culprit would be Iraq, which had repeatedly used nerve agents, and not Iran, which had not been so accused." (pp. 195–196)
 * SeriousSam11: "Zanders' case also depends on the assumption that Iraq may have produced and employed cyanide-based agents. However, this supposition is refuted by observation and thorough inspection of Iraq's chemical weapons program through the Iran-Iraq War, UN inspections during the sanctions period, and the post-invasion search for weapons of mass destruction." (citing sources that say nothing of the kind)
 * Hiltermann 2007: "The Pentagon has never supplied conclusive proof for the cyanide claim, nor for the accusation that Iran had used this type of gas previously. ... Even the proven presence of cyanide gas at Halabja would not necessarily implicate Iran. For one thing, Iraq had been accused of cyanide gas use in earlier battles—allegations that remain unconfirmed. By that logic, Iraq could also be implicated in any Halabja deaths by cyanide. ... Cyanide is one of tabun's essential ingredients; tabun cannot be produced without cyanide; Iraq therefore must have had cyanide, the Pentagon's reasoning notwithstanding. 'It is preposterous to argue that Iraq did not have cyanide,' said chemical weapons expert Gordon Burck (interview, 2000). 'They built a plant in the early 1970s that could produce it. And besides, it is a very common chemical. Sodium cyanide is a standard chemical in the cleaning of swimming pools.' Because of its connection to tabun, if hydrocyanide is found in a given environment, it could be either the residual effect of poorly manufactured tabun or a breakdown element when tabun decomposes." (pp. 195–197)
 * I'll give any page watchers a bit more time to chime in before I revert SeriousSam11 myself, but I will make note of a remarkably lengthy and incoherent rant riddled with threats and personal attacks that that user recently posted on my usertalk page in lieu of responding to the research presented above, in which SeriousSam11 again presented no sources that support his OR but continued to insist that he just knows better than SIPRI and Hiltermann what the facts are, and also doubled down on deliberate misrepresentations such as "I could go into further irrational claims by Zanders like Iran making the Islamic case for things which he takes at face value" when Zanders says exactly the opposite: "There is no unified view on what the religious prohibition entails. The school that advocates the interpretation of an absolute prohibition is the minority view. In addition, the Iranians have made conditional statements on this prohibition, as well as statements on deterrence. If the Iran-Iraq War had gone on, Iran would have probably used chemical weapons. They also did some field trials with CW. ... In addition, at least three schools of interpretation accept that military necessity can come before the religious prohibition."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * "rather than relying on one Wikipedia editor's personal opinions."


 * This quote sums up this entire rant (much of it is irrelevant to what we're discussing anyways). For you to claim that the CDC and UN are "personal opinions", while a relatively nobody making one-liner statements purely on the basis of conjecture and lacking a very elementary understanding of medical knowledge is not, demonstrates a very strong agenda-driven opposition to WP:NPOV and WP:RS. You're going on a lot of tangents, so let's bring it back to what we're talking about. Zanders said that blue discoloration is not symptom of cyanide poisoning, in other words, cyanide poisoning will not cause blue discoloration. This is blatantly wrong, as the CDC (and any basic medical information) asserts that it is. You're claiming that the CDC is personal opinion? Are you claiming that blue discoloration can never be caused by cyanide? This is strongly promoting WP:FRINGE. Zanders claims in another one-liner, without any evidence or support, that Iraq must have developed and used HCN. Decades of UN and US inspections and search, however, turned up mustard gas and nerve agents, but nothing with regards to cyanide-based agents. The fact that you are referring to the United Nations as a "personal opinion" is further proof of such ludicrous logic. And actually, "Chronology of UN Inspections" specifically mentions Halabja, but Zanders claims in question were not specifically about Halabja. There is no need to strawman. Rather, they were about cyanide poisoning in general and about Iraq's chemical weapons program.


 * Since you appear to have difficulty in understanding this, I'll put it in simple terms.
 * Zanders: Cyanide does not cause blue discoloration.
 * CDC and any basic medical knowledge: Cyanide causes blue discoloration.
 * Zanders: Iraq must have had HCN.
 * UN: Iraq possessed mustard gas and nerve agents, and no mention of cyanide-based agents.


 * By persisting in censoring reliable sources that refute Zanders' fringe claims to promote WP:FRINGE. What you are defending by claiming that Zanders is correct in stating that blue discoloration is not a symptom of cyanide is as absurd as claiming "A runny nose is not a symptom of a cold", which of course is very easily refuted by elementary medical knowledge. To censor reliable sources which happen to be a couple of the most reputed organizations in the world, and additionally refer to them as "personal opinions", while insisting on defending an source that is proven to be unreliable by making easily refuted claims, is to very much violate WP:RS and WP:NPOV. By consistently resorting to personal attacks and insults, most recently calling me a lunatic, including your "genocide denier" rants, you have repeatedly broken WP:PA, and along with everything else, have made it evident that this is more of an emotional matter for you than a logical one, and frankly all of this combined is truly an expression of lacking in WP:COMPETENCE. SeriousSam11 (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * As I added reliable sources refuting Zanders' claims, to which you responded with personal attacks and edit warring, the onus is on you to prove the following:
 * 1) Prove that blue discoloration is not possible due to cyanide poisoning, as Zanders claims, despite this defying very basic medical knowledge.
 * 2) Prove that Iraq developed, possessed, and used cyanide-based agents (which is his own conjecture at that, and not something he's stating is true), despite there being no evidence of this being the case, especially as a result of one of the most extensive weapons inspections in history and the occupation of Iraq.
 * Please answer the above without writing paragraphs on irrelevant tangents, building and attacking strawmen, or making frequent personal attacks and putting words in my mouth. To put it in simple terms you are able to understand, your goal is to prove that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and United Nations are wrong and unreliable sources (or as you say, the CDC and UN are my "personal opinions", which is delusional). If you do not do this, then the sources will remain. If you continue to deny the factual evidence from the CDC and UN or refuse to make a case proving them wrong, then it will be another proof of your continued opposition to NPOV and reliability. For example, proving that the CDC is wrong and has no idea what they're talking about regarding cyanide poisoning is a good starting point. SeriousSam11 (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is really not a complicated matter, the lengthy diatribe above me notwithstanding. As TTAAC attempted to explain above, cyanosis may be a symptom of cyanide poisoning, but it is not diagnostic of cyanide poisoning; Iraq is known to have possessed cyanide (a very common chemical), but not to have developed cyanide-based gasses; any cyanosis at Halabja was most likely a byproduct of the use of tabun. There's nothing in SeriousSam11's latest comment to indicate any engagement with these points (WP:IDONTHEARTHAT comes to mind). In any case, I checked the sources in this edit and a quick ctrl + f confirmed that none of them mentions 'Zanders'.--יניב הורון (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It appears you misunderstand what's being discussed here. Also you provide no evidence to disprove the CDC or UN (and in fact, you agree with the UN). TTAAC's tangent is not the same as what Zanders stated though, which is that blue discoloration is not a symptom of cyanide, whereas all Hiltermann claims is that red discoloration is a possibility. You're comparing two different things, as they're saying two completely different things. Can you explain why you believe Zanders is correct in stating the blue discoloration is not a symptom of cyanide poisoning? To put it in perspective, you're stating the equivalent of: "A runny nose is not a symptom of the common cold." It's evident you are confused on this matter. You have the opportunity now to actually understand what was being stated and correct yourself or please provide evidence that cyanide poisoning does not cause blue discoloration, as is Zanders' claim. Though it it tangential, if we really want to talk about Hiltermann's claim, the CDC does not even make mention of red discoloration.


 * You do however admit that the UN is correct and the Zanders is wrong regarding Iraq's chemical weapons program. I agree these should be re-added as Zanders conjecture is negligent at best, as you agree. Also, it worth reiterating Zanders' statement is on the basis of his own personal conjecture, and he doesn't say otherwise.


 * Also, what do articles having to contain Zanders have anything to do with this? Zanders is a relatively unknown individual whose one-liner claims only existed on a web page that no longer exists of a little known institute. It's fair to say few people have ever seen or heard what Zanders had to say. Anyways, by the same logic, Hiltermann's claims make no reference to Stephen Pelletiere despite being used to refute Pelletiere's statements. In order to be fair, this must mean that all information by Hiltermann should be removed on this basis. Are you sure this is the course of action you want?
 * Since we have reached consensus that the sources regarding Iraq's chemical weapons program are to remain, I call on you to prove that blue discoloration is not possible due to cyanide poisoning, as Zanders claims. Otherwise, you're continuing to promote fringe theory. SeriousSam11 (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

OTD
I am going to nominate the article for OTD of 16 March, Is there any problem with that? Thanks! Saff V. (talk) 13:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I currently don't see anything that would prohibit this from appearing. — howcheng  {chat} 20:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 12 December 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) Colonestarrice (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Halabja chemical attack → Halabja massacre – WP:COMMONNAME (see below) and WP:PRECISE. There is no other topic commonly known as "Halabja massacre". (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * See NGRAMS, also, there are 2,000 Google Scholar results for "Halabja massacre" compared to 100 for "Halabja chemical attack") (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. More appropriate to name it as a massacre rather than an attack, implying that civilians were targets and the main loss of life, in contrast to an attack which could in this case falsely imply that the attack was directed towards military targets. The civilian loss of life was also too much for it to just be considered an "attack", as we have seen with other massacres in history, massacres can reap thousands of lives. In this case, this is the exact case with Halabja. Twistedaxe (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: It is more widely known as "Halabja massacre" or at least "Halabja attack" than "Halabja chemical attack". Per WP:COMMONNAME. In addition to that, it was in all essences a massacre (some have even called it genocide), an act of mass murder against civilians, and is the sensible option to choose. Dunutubble (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The entirety of this article is false
Idk how one could conclude it was Iraq. You are liars and Iranian agents 85.204.132.58 (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)