And here is the full text of the source of the wikipedia statement , from their footnote link
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/iraq/britain_iraq_07.shtmlDid the British actually use gas in their attempts to suppress the Iraqi revolt in 1920?
Elen - Italy; Douglas - USA; BJ - USA; Jolyon - USA
DH: I am myself not sure whether Britain actually used gas on the tribesmen. I used to believe they did but the latest source I used (Lawrence James, The Rise and Fall of the British Empire) says on p.400 'By September the local commander, General Sir Aylmer Haldane, was beginning to get the upper hand (in putting down the Iraqi revolt), although he was still desperate enough to clamour for large supplies of poison gas. It was not needed, for air power had given his forces the edge whenever the going got tough.'
The author refers to a report in the Public Record Office. The British government admitted that questionable methods had been used in Iraq, but it was glad they were not noticed because of the troubles in Ireland at the time. These methods included machine-gunning fleeing tribesmen from the air. Several thousand Iraqis were killedSo...whether the Iraqi's were actually gassed or not is an open question. But there is no doubt that the implication is the gas was being used for some purpose, or why the clamor for more?
Besides, whether the British were slaughtering Iraqis with gas or machine gunning them down, my point that Americans are totally ignorant of the history of western involvement in the Middle East is as true as the sun rising in the east tomorrow morning.