International reaction to Saddam Hussein's genocide of the Kurds in Halabja

[ljadw]

The rule is that civilians can not demand immunity if they stay in a military target .And this rule exists not only since 1939 but since thousands of years .
A school can not be a target,but if the school is located near a military target and is destroyed when the military target is attacked, there is no reason for complaining .
The Kurdish village was a military target where civilians had no business .A lot of them were killed ,but they had only themselves to blame .
In WW 1 the city of Ypres was a military target and its inhabitants were wise enough to leave the city .
In 1917 my grand father left (was forced to leave ) his home because he lived not far from Passendale and because the Germans knew of the allied preparations and ordered the civilians to leave .If he had not left,he would not have survived .

[NickA]

The rule is that civilians can not demand immunity if they stay in a military target And this rule exists not only since 1939 but since thousands of years .

OK, the rule was codified in 1939 (though perhaps you meaned to post 1945 or subsequently). What does the new law state?

A school can not be a target,but if the school is located near a military target and is destroyed when the military target is attacked, there is no reason for complaining .

That surely depends on the munitions - it would be inexcusable to use precision munitions to attack a school (even if there were fleeing troops in there - they have rights that are over 150 years old). That would be disproportionate and culpable. Only permissible if they were using it for defense.

However, a force (eg a resistance group) may only have imprecise weapons - they're in the clear provided their attack is proportionate. Unless you tell me differently.

The Kurdish village was a military target where civilians had no business .A lot of them were killed ,but they had only themselves to blame .

Did Saddam warn them?

In WW 1 the city of Ypres was a military target and its inhabitants were wise enough to leave the city . In 1917 my grand father left (was forced to leave ) his home because he lived not far from Passendale and because the Germans knew of the allied preparations and ordered the civilians to leave .If he had not left,he would not have survived .

That's rather different - it sounds as if the family were ordered to leave for temporary billeting of troops or for their own safety. That's reasonable but its also rare.

[ljadw]

Why should Saddam warn them ?They belonged to a group of Kurds who collaborated with the enemy = Iran .
The LW did not warn the inhabitants of Coventry, the RAF did not warn the inhabitants of Hamburg, the USAAF did not warn the inhabitants of the Syrian cities it planned to bombard .
1600 civilians were killed during US air attacks on Raqqa.
If that was legitimate ( and it was ) so were the attacks of Saddam's aviation on Kurdish cities where the population had supported Iran .
In WW 1 the inhabitants of Ypres and Verdun had fled, for their own security . The inhabitants of the Kurdish village preferred to remain, to help the Kurdish rebels and Iran . If they had any intelligence,they knew that Saddam would attack the town .
Civilians should always leave places where military are fighting .If they don't they can expect to be treated as soldiers .

[NickA]

Why should Saddam warn them ? They belonged to a group of Kurds who collaborated with the enemy = Iran .

I think we agree - the people of Halabja were not warned to leave their homes.

However, my question was - under what law were they required to do so?

The LW did not warn the inhabitants of Coventry, the RAF did not warn the inhabitants of Hamburg, the USAAF did not warn the inhabitants of the Syrian cities it planned to bombard .

It is arguable that the attacks on Coventry and Hamburg were legitimate - they were industrial heartlands that, at least in theory, could contribute to an attack on the attackers homelands.

1600 civilians were killed during US air attacks on Raqqa. If that was legitimate ( and it was )

Tell me more - I'd have said those attacks were wholly illegitimate. Attacks by the US happened before any Western hostage were beheaded (the latter could even likely be justified as "legitimate retaliation" against attacks on civilians, at a level far lower than the provocation).

so were the attacks of Saddam's aviation on Kurdish cities where the population had supported Iran .

The ordinary citizens of Halabja may have been a threat to Saddam - though I'm not aware of how that could be. I think you should show evidence for what you claim.

In WW 1 the inhabitants of Ypres and Verdun had fled, for their own security .

That's irrelevant to the circumstances we're discussing and I'm questioning.

The inhabitants of the Kurdish village preferred to remain, to help the Kurdish rebels and Iran . If they had any intelligence,they knew that Saddam would attack the town .

None of that refers to the rule you claimed was in place.

Civilians should always leave places where military are fighting .If they don't they can expect to be treated as soldiers .

I'm still waiting for this rule. No military fighting in Coventry or Hamburg. Nor in Halabja that I know of. The locals may have revolted against Saddam's puppet governors and sought to govern themselves (the people doing this probably had personal weapons but I know of no indication they were any threat to Saddam and his control of Arab Iraq). I think it unlikely that any "Iranian troops", potentially a threat to Saddam later, were billeted in Halabja.

I'd suggest that Halabja was attacked with nerve agents primarily because boys wanted to play with their toys. No town/city had ever been attacked with nerve agents and the manufacturers (thousands of miles away) simply wanted to know what effects they'd have.

[ljadw]

Why should Saddam warn them ? They belonged to a group of Kurds who collaborated with the enemy = Iran .

I think we agree - the people of Halabja were not warned to leave their homes.

However, my question was - under what law were they required to do so?

The LW did not warn the inhabitants of Coventry, the RAF did not warn the inhabitants of Hamburg, the USAAF did not warn the inhabitants of the Syrian cities it planned to bombard .

It is arguable that the attacks on Coventry and Hamburg were legitimate - they were industrial heartlands that, at least in theory, could contribute to an attack on the attackers homelands.

1600 civilians were killed during US air attacks on Raqqa. If that was legitimate ( and it was )

Tell me more - I'd have said those attacks were wholly illegitimate. Attacks by the US happened before any Western hostage were beheaded (the latter could even likely be justified as "legitimate retaliation" against attacks on civilians, at a level far lower than the provocation).

so were the attacks of Saddam's aviation on Kurdish cities where the population had supported Iran .

The ordinary citizens of Halabja may have been a threat to Saddam - though I'm not aware of how that could be. I think you should show evidence for what you claim.

In WW 1 the inhabitants of Ypres and Verdun had fled, for their own security .

That's irrelevant to the circumstances we're discussing and I'm questioning.

The inhabitants of the Kurdish village preferred to remain, to help the Kurdish rebels and Iran . If they had any intelligence,they knew that Saddam would attack the town .

None of that refers to the rule you claimed was in place.

Civilians should always leave places where military are fighting .If they don't they can expect to be treated as soldiers .

I'm still waiting for this rule. No military fighting in Coventry or Hamburg. Nor in Halabja that I know of. The locals may have revolted against Saddam's puppet governors and sought to govern themselves (the people doing this probably had personal weapons but I know of no indication they were any threat to Saddam and his control of Arab Iraq). I think it unlikely that any "Iranian troops", potentially a threat to Saddam later, were billeted in Halabja.

I'd suggest that Halabja was attacked with nerve agents primarily because boys wanted to play with their toys. No town/city had ever been attacked with nerve agents and the manufacturers (thousands of miles away) simply wanted to know what effects they'd have.

1 Under what law ?The law of self-preservation : if your country is at war and a part of it is occupied by the enemy and you collaborate with the enemy,and you know that your ruler will attack you to punish you, you should fled to a point where he can't reach you .
2 The attacks on Raqqa were legitimate : Raqqa was occupied by ISIS and there were two possibilities : or the inhabitants collaborated with ISIS and were thus legitimate targets, or they were prisoners of ISIS and had to be liberated .
3 It was not needed that the citizens of Halabja were a threat to Saddam for an attack on the CITY ( there is no proof that the civilians were intentionally targeted )
4 There WAS a lot of fighting in Coventry and Hamburg : in the November 1940 attack 515 German bombers killed 568 people and dropped 500 tons of explosives and 36000 incendiary bombs.
The attack on Halabja occurred 2 days after the city was captured by the Iranians . Thus the city was a legitimate target for the Iraqi air force ,even if its inhabitants had not collaborated with Iran .
In December 1944 the USAAF attacked 3 times the Belgian town of Malmédy,killing a lot of civilians and 37 US soldiers, because they thought,wrongly,that the town was occupied by the Germans .
No one said that the attack was illegitimate.
If the civilians were not there,they would not have died :thus the rule is that there is no place for civilians where military are fighting,because bullets and bombs can not know who is civilian and who is a soldier .
And, Saddam did not order attacks on the Kurdish people, but ONLY on those Kurds who fought against him .And 10 years later,US asked Saddam to attack the Kurds and looked on the other side .Thus their protests are only hypocrisy .
The attacks on Halabja,on Raqqa and the attacks with poison gas by Assad against ISIS were legitimate .
And about Iranians in Halabja : the first pictures after the attack were made by Iranian journalists,which proves that Halabja was on the Iranian side of the front and thus a legitimate target .
If Dover had been captured by the Germans during Sea Lion, the RAF would not have hesitated to attack the city ,even at the risk of killing British civilians .

[NickA]

1 Under what law ?The law of self-preservation

You've said it all - there is no such law.

[ljadw]

Self-preservation is the most important law on earth .

[Nemmexe]

As Waleed mentioned before, A war was going between Iran and Iraq.

What Iranian Army officials said, is that it was targeted by Iraqi forces as a distraction for some Iraqi and MKO agents to infiltrate the border and sabotage nearby military / economy targets.

Also not much after the incident, MKO attacked Iranian border, supported by Iraqi Army.

Is seems possible, IMO.

[Manisoa]

In one of her letters, Gertrude Bell mentions Colonel McCann Sanders RA, who was the Military Attache to Persia in the 1930s and later the head of Military Intelligence in India, as a dinner guest.
run 3

[LineDoggie]

The rule applied to Coventry, to Hiroshima, to Dresden, to the Syrian cities that were destroyed by the USAAF, to the Belgian town of Mortsel attacked in 1943 by the USAAF with 1000 civilian deaths .

Wait, when did the USAAF destroy Syrian Cities?
Last I looked Vichy Syria ceased to exist 5 months before the USA entered into WW2

In Mortsel's cases the target was the Belgian factory repairing nazi aircraft used to kill American , British, & Canadian aircrew

[LineDoggie]

That surely depends on the munitions - it would be inexcusable to use precision munitions to attack a school (even if there were fleeing troops in there - they have rights that are over 150 years old). That would be disproportionate and culpable. Only permissible if they were using it for defense.

Using a school for military purposes (ie barracks, command and control facility or weapons position, shelter for troops) is in itself a warcrime under GC4 and such a facility loses any protections if so used. Proportional is an opinion and they differ. If you are under attack you feel it disproportional as opposed to the attackers opinion. Precision weapons are to a degree precise compared to Dumb bombs which have no guidance once dropped.

[ljadw]

The rule applied to Coventry, to Hiroshima, to Dresden, to the Syrian cities that were destroyed by the USAAF, to the Belgian town of Mortsel attacked in 1943 by the USAAF with 1000 civilian deaths .

Wait, when did the USAAF destroy Syrian Cities?
Last I looked Vichy Syria ceased to exist 5 months before the USA entered into WW2

In Mortsel's cases the target was the Belgian factory repairing nazi aircraft used to kill American , British, & Canadian aircrew

In Mortsel's case , the damage on the target was negligible, but almost 1000 civilians died .
For Syria : US destroyed Raqqa in its war against ISIS,causing a lot of civilian deaths, but US protested when Assad liberated Syrian cities without destroying them by using poison gas against ISIS.
The USAAF attacked also Libyan cities when it supported the enemies of Gadaffi,who included ISIS .

[Aida1]

The rule is that civilians can not demand immunity if they stay in a military target .And this rule exists not only since 1939 but since thousands of years .
A school can not be a target,but if the school is located near a military target and is destroyed when the military target is attacked, there is no reason for complaining .
The Kurdish village was a military target where civilians had no business .A lot of them were killed ,but they had only themselves to blame .
In WW 1 the city of Ypres was a military target and its inhabitants were wise enough to leave the city .
In 1917 my grand father left (was forced to leave ) his home because he lived not far from Passendale and because the Germans knew of the allied preparations and ordered the civilians to leave .If he had not left,he would not have survived .

Nonsense as always. And completely ignorant of rules of war.

[Aida1]

There is no proof that the rebelling Kurds prevented the other Kurds from leaving the occupied town .The town was a military target and civilians should leave military targets .And the Kurds knew it .

The usual contradicting of common sense. Spewing out nonsense for the heck of it as always.

[Aida1]

Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons against Kurds in Halabja, northern Iraq, in March 1988, is well-known, yet international reaction to this horrible atrocity is little known. The US government and its intelligence agencies suggested that Iran was responsible for the deaths of Kurdish civilians in Halabja, and the Defense Intelligence Agency and Central Intelligence Agency analyst Stephen C. Pelletiere agreed with this assessment. The British government, for its part, chose to maintain dialogue with Iraq rather than hold Iraq accountable for the genocide of the Kurds in Halabja by imposing unilateral sanctions. In the meantime, the Prevention of Genocide Act was introduced in Congress with provisions to punish Saddam Hussein for the massacre by embargoing all dual-use technological exports, stopping all Export-Import bank credits, banning US imports of Iraqi oil, and mandating US opposition to any loans by the International Monetary Fund or any other multilateral financial institution. However, the Reagan administration chose not to speak out against Saddam's genocide of the Kurds and threatened to veto the bill if a vote was held on it.

Links:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140529183 ... e_1049.jsp
https://web.archive.org/web/20180406074 ... f-war.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventio ... ct_of_1988

Some rectifications :
There was NO genocide of the Kurds, but attacks with poison gas against those Kurds who revolted against Saddam,those who did not rebel,remained safe .

Poison gas is by definition a non discriminate weapon which you certainly cannot use against a town. Common sense but you are into contradicting for the heck of it. Trolling behaviour.