Talk:Halabja massacre

message: 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)
replies: text: 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#Published_Iranian_involvement there isn't much of a problem recognized, while you propose a solution. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Solution

message: 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 67.84.139.230 (talk) 17:40, August 25, 2007 (UTC) 
: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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: US Role

message: 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)
thread_title: Request for more reasons

message: 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)
thread_title: Request for technical accuracy

message: :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)
thread_title: This is hardly an encyclopedic article

message: 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)
thread_title:  Erroneous Claims that the United States supplied CWs to Iraq 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A matter of who made them,or why they were made? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Ive added material pertaining to this question.--Zereshk 20:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Iran Connection. 

message: 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)
thread_title: Request of proof

message: 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)
thread_title:  Popular culture references: OK? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: What dropped the chemicals?

message: 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)
replies: text: What do you think of the warning I added?raptor 10:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of graphic images 

message: 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)
thread_title: WP:MilHist Assessment

message: 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)
thread_title: Substitute outdated reference

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

message: 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 Halabja Massacre -- 21:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attack ? Is a real Massacre 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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&Windows 20:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Published Iranian involvement 

message: 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)
thread_title:  genocide 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Halabja1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

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

message: 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. - Steve3849talk 16:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "United States [was an] accomplice" in the Iraqi defense of Basra. Learn2read, kthx. --Niemti (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. - Steve3849talk 17:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  paragraph regarding US intelligence aiding Iraq 

message: 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)
thread_title: When did the US change its official position?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  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 IITalk to my owner:Online 07:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  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 IITalk to my owner:Online 09:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title: Van Anraat

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: I currently don't see anything that would prohibit this from appearing. —howcheng  {chat} 20:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  OTD 

message: :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)
replies: text: Halabja chemical attack →  – WP:COMMONNAME (see below) and WP:PRECISE. There is no other topic commonly known as "Halabja massacre". (t · c) buidhe 20:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Requested move 12 December 2021 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The entirety of this article is false