I think it's somewhat outrageous that the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anfal redirects to here. This is a chapter of the Qur'an as seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal. Surely this is more significant than what some Iraqis named their genocide campaign.Stenen Bijl (talk) 06:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This is not a forum for general discussion about Al-Anfal campaign. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Al-Anfal campaign at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.|
- 1 Merge
- 2 I like how you "remove offensive wording" everywhere, Kassem.
- 3 Saddam Hussein
- 4 two articles about the same topic
- 5 Spam
- 6 Merging
- 7 Figures
- 8 Only one side of the story
- 9 Question
- 10 Sign your posts!
- 11 References
- 12 Can we have articles at least on Sultan Hashem Ahmed and Hussein Rashid Mohammed?
- 13 Image copyright problem with Image:KDP.gif
- 14 An image on this page may be deleted
- 15 American responsibility
- 16 Reason for the operation?
- 17 Odd and confusing wording
- 18 NPOV
- 19 No mention of Reagan selling Saddam chemical weapons materials
- 20 File:Halabja1.jpg Nominated for Deletion
- 21 The truth doesn't need to be embellished
This page should probably be merged with ANFAL, but I don't know enough about the subject to say which name it should be merged under. My guess would be this one, though. Anyone? --Xanzzibar 23:02, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes, merge them. - FrancisTyers 20:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
The articles should definitely be merged in some way, but like Xanzzibar, I don't know enough about the subject matter to say anything about the articles name or content. Comment: The 1988 Anfal campaign article appears to be about a particular episode within the timeframe dealt with in the Al-Anfal Campaign article. --Dengo 09:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
They should be merged. They're both technically the same thing.
-- Some guy
- Ok, they've been merged (finally). I merged into this page, because it's more general. I don't think any information was lost during the transfer, but I did remove a lot of the redundancies between the two articles, smoothed things out, and reorganized everything into what seemed the most logical division. This is still a very messy article though, about a very important topic, which should be smoothed out - paying specific attention to sources, which are scattered all over the place. --Jackson 05:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I like how you "remove offensive wording" everywhere, Kassem.
Then invoke NPOV under false pretenses, while changing words like "expel" to "relocate." Again, you will cease this deliberate editing of NPOV wording into Wikipedia articles, or I will personally take you before mediation and/or arbitration.
two articles about the same topic
- There were actually several phases to the Anfal Campaign, which took place between 1986 and 1989... I have read that the events of 1988 were the most deadly during the campaign Garr1984 04:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)§
I found this under 'See Also'
carly is a butt face... why are we able to edit these sources... it makes them unreliable.... duhhhh
I removed it.
This topic should be merged with the other respective article, the 1988 Anfal Campaign article. This one has some good stats, but I think the other article presents some good facts that will help show the true nature of this genocide. Unfortunately, I can't do this myself as I'm rather terrible in merging topics.MercZ 23:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
This section should be reviewed and updated with better verifiable facts. I just did a quick check of a source and revised the number of churches destroyed during this campaign. I also checked a few other sources that ought to be replaced by better/more trustworthy sources. fno 07:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Only one side of the story
This article, and the other similar article, only quotes sources from the Kurdish side of the story. What is the context of these killings? How do the Ba'athists explain themselves when questioned on this topic??--188.8.131.52 09:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- I know that at Saddam Hussein's Arraignment, he said regarding the Anfal Campaign and more specifically the poison gas attack on Halabja, that he had "Heard about it" but had no further knowledge of it. I also know that there is an audio tape that has Chemical Ali talking about killing the kurds, saying, and I quote: "We will kill them all. We will kill them with chemical weapons. Who is going to do anything about it? The International Community?!? Fuck Them! Fuck Them And All Who Listen To Them!!! I will not attack them with chemicals just one day, but I will continue to attack them with chemicals for fifteen days." " and Saddam's voice can be heard on the tape saying something along the lines of "Yes, The Poison is Very Effective". I also know that, at any rate, Saddam thought the Kurds were in league with Iraq's Enemies, namely Iran, but I don't know how best to integrate this information into the article, or if it's even a good idea to do so. Garr1984 15:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)§
- Yes there is no context here whatsoever. Saddam Hussein acted within the context of an open rebellion against the central government in Baghdad. A better comparison would be what General Sherman did to the South during the American Civil War, rather than the Nazis' extermination of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:17, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
- There's no body of evidence showing that General Sherman tolerated rape or murder, though I'd suspect that rapes and murder occurred at a somewhat higher level than in civilian life. That's virtually inevitable, and absolutely nothing like a true rape atrocity or true massacre. He destroyed tons of property, and I mean tons. There doesn't seem to be a consensus that this led to the death of many civilians, though I'm sure it contributed to the death of at least a few dozen. In short the General was a proud and honorable soldier, clean as a whistle and no commiter of atrocities, whatever your view of his cause (I view it negatively). There can be no serious doubt that his ferociousness against civilian property shortened the war. He did invent 'total war', but only a fool could maintain that it would not have been invented soon anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I noticed a link at the bottom of the page to the Halabja massacre. Does the Al-Anfal campaign include the Halabja massacre or is it entirely separate?
Halabja was during the Iran Iraq war, Halabja was a scene of battle not part of An-Fal.
There are true evidences that more than 182 000 innocent Kurdish (Kurdistanian) men, women and children were buried alive in the brutal Anfal-campaign that Saddam's dictatorship made in the (Southern) Kurdistan (in Iraq). More than 4500 villages were levelled with the ground - it is simple a GENOCIDE against the KURDISTANIAN people, who are the Kurds, the Turkomen and the Assyrians.
- History only tells one side of the story... the story they want us to hear... the fact of the matter is that these people were conspiring or at least sympathizing with Iraq's enemies, namely Iran, and Iran was also our enemy at the time. I am not saying that they had it coming, or that it was right for Saddam to commit these atrocities, it was not. It just seems to me that violence is all these people will ever understand... It it even foretold in the bible that as the descendants of Ishmael, Arabs would not be able to get with the descendants of Isaac (Christians and Jews), and that prophecy fulfills itself all over again on a daily basis. They can't even get along with each other. Garr1984 14:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)§
Sign your posts!
Too many people aren't signing their posts here. Discussion is important on articles such as this due to its controversal nature. You can't hide your identity by not signing because people will just dig you out of the history, so just sign your posts please to facilitate easier discussion and make your points appear more valid. Thanks SGGH speak! 11:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
dig you out of history? if that is meant to b a joke it aint funny, mate. Jalal.
- Er... no it isn't meant to be a joke... it means users will just look in the page history to see who placed the comment, it just saves time and effort if you sign your posts rather than forcing me to look into the history to discover that you are User:Jalalhusseinbradford, use ~~~~, thanks. SGGH speak! 19:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
There's a complete lack of references on this page. For something claiming to be a genocide of 182,000 human beings I'd expect a whole lot more than two references. 18.104.22.168 15:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- It is not a claim, Mr. Taliban Supporter from Sydney :). It has been documented extensively by the Human Rights Watch.Heja Helweda 01:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The anfal-camoaign destroyed more than 5,000 kurdish villiages across southern Kurdistan and more than 182,000 civilian Kurds have been buried alive in huge massgraves in southern Iraq, were the graves have been till today not been found.
Can we have articles at least on Sultan Hashem Ahmed and Hussein Rashid Mohammed?
--HanzoHattori 20:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:KDP.gif
The image Image:KDP.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
An image on this page may be deleted
This is an automated message regarding an image used on this page. The image File:Anfal1988assyrianchurch.jpg, found on Al-Anfal Campaign, has been nominated for deletion because it does not meet Wikipedia image policy. Please see the image description page for more details. If this message was sent in error (that is, the image is not up for deletion, or was left on the wrong talk page), please contact this bot's operator. STBotI (talk) 04:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Article makes it seems like these were bunch of innocents being butchered, first off, there was no genocide, second of the Kurds were armed and instructed by the CIA to attack the Iraqi state / police / military and they certainly did so, often murdering or and abbusing any prisoners they got, all in all the Kurds TREASONED, attacked their legal state with acts of terrosim, and we are supposed to feel sorry, and eat up this propaganda cake, dreamed up in Washington. No thanks! So i would suggest, the ARTICLE BE MADE TO REFLECT THE REALITY, AND NOT SOME FAIRYTALE.
Do you have any evidence for that? The only portion of American involvement in Iraq at the time was providing Iraq with support against Iran, which it also ended up using for the Kurds.
Though it's obvious from the way you made your comment you have some pre-existing prejudice or issue with this article, and wikipedia doesn't welcome that. Get lost. MercZ (talk) 07:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Reason for the operation?
Odd and confusing wording
Under "Name", we learn that
- Al-Anfal is the eighth sura or chapter of the Qur'an which explains the triumph of 319 followers of the new Muslim faith over almost 900 pagans at the battle of Badr in 624 AD.
- Al Anfal literally means the spoils (of war) and was used to describe the military campaign of extermination and looting commanded by Ali Hassan al-Majid.
Now, I happened by this page by accident and know nothing about this. But this wording seems to imply that "the military campaign of extermination and looting" actually took place in 624 AD ("was used" immediately after the mention of the battle of Badr...), which can't be true, since Ali Hassan al-Majid is a 20th century figure. Or were there two people with the same name? And if "the military campaign of extermination and looting" refers to the actual 20th century campaign this article is about, then that part of the second sentence is completely redundant. It should simply say "Al Anfal literally means the spoils (of war)."
Furthermore, there's another article, jash (which, by the way, looks like a candidate for AfD, unless there's a wealth of information on jash units), linked in the same paragraph, which states that "during the Battle of Badr in 624 AD, a military campaign of extermination and looting was commanded by Ali Hassan al-Majid". So were there two Ali Hassan al-Majids after all? --Jashiin (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
This article is deeply one-sided and presents the Kurdish/HRW point of view. A neutral article would also present the Baathist point of view and their reasons for the campaign. In the present form, it is as complete as would be, say, an article about War in Afghanistan (2001–present) if it only focused on the numbers of Afghan civilians and insurgent "massacred" by Americans, without mentioning 9/11. --Itinerant1 (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
No mention of Reagan selling Saddam chemical weapons materials
This article doesn't have a word about the Reagan administration selling biological and chemical weapons to Saddam. The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5,000 men, women and children died. The following article cites investigations by the U.S. Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm Somehow I get the feeling that if Carter or Clinton had done this, Wikipedia would report it in detail. But when it comes to the GOP presidents, Wikipedia always whitewashes the record and gives them a pass. So much for "neutral point of view." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
File:Halabja1.jpg Nominated for Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:Halabja1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
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.
The truth doesn't need to be embellished
I feel the numbers in the second paragraph of the Summary are sensationalist and in part, self contradictory.
"The attacks were part of a long-standing campaign that destroyed approximately 4,500 Kurdish village in areas of northern Iraq and displaced at least a million of the country's estimated 3.5 million Kurdish population. Independent sources estimate 1,100,000 to more than 2,150,000 deaths and as many as 860,000 widows and an even greater number of orphans."
The first sentence establishes an estimated 3.5m pop, from which up to 2.15m or more are killed, leaving (a remaining?) 860K widows and 860K plus orphans. Applying the lower of two totals leaves only 380K or less in an 'other' category. If the higher of the two death statistics is taken then the combined total exceeds the 3.5m pop background figure. It’s also not clear what portion of the 1m displaced are included or excluded.
Other reputable sources cited within the article are nowhere near these numbers which seem to come from a single source. Exceptional claims should be substantiated by exceptional or multiple sources.