Iraq Executions 92

The Iraqi governmnet executed 34 people in a single day last week, and judicial killings are running at over 600 people a year. Extra-judicial killings by state sponsored actors are much higher, and still higher are killings by various violent factions.

Meantime there are less than a third as many operational hospital beds as before the invasion, and less than 20% of the doctors. There are three million maimed people in Iraq. Available electricity in MW/h is about 30% of pre-invasion levels.

I am waiting for a neo-con acolyte to tell us now how the “liberal intervention” has greatly improved the lot of the people of Iraq.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

92 thoughts on “Iraq Executions

1 2 3 4
  • Philip

    Doesn’t Iran execute people? Well, there you are then. It’s all their fault, and they’ve got WMD too. Real ones, I mean. Not like last time, only more so.

  • John Goss

    The neocons will keep quiet now their mission has been accomplished. They never from the start had any care for the sanctity of life, human or otherwise. Oil was their only motive. Blair, lying through his evil teeth again, said if it was oil the west was after we could ‘cut a deal’. Well now with 90% of Iraqi oil, (previously nationalised by the Iraqi government) in the hands of privately-owned western companies there is no need to lie any more. The truth speaks for itself!

  • Uzbek in the UK

    Artificial borders drawn from thousands miles away on a piece of paper without taking into consideration cultural, religious, ethnical and other compositions are real problems of Iraq and Iraqi people

  • Azra

    @Philip, I hope you are being sarcastic.
    Iran does execute, and each single execution is reported in the MSM here, and extra judicial killing?? the only one are western/Israhell sponsored ones.

  • Philip

    @Azra, yes, that was sarcasm. It was also an anticipation of the arguments soon to be used in prosecuting Werritty’s War; once transferred to that context it will cease to be sarcasm and become bold, enlightened statesmanship, though I don’t suppose I shall get a penny in royalties.

  • Azra

    Uzbek, the simple answer is I do not know. There is so much negative propaganda is going on about Iran that is very difficult to sift truth out! There are many Shia killed in Iraq, many of them Iranian Pilgrims but half of that do not get reported in the west, so who knows.
    I do not know though , what is the benefit to Iran if there is sectarian violence in a neighbouring country??

  • Uzbek in the UK

    ‘I do not know though , what is the benefit to Iran if there is sectarian violence in a neighbouring country??’
    Well, it is Iraq we are talking about. Does history of conflicts between Iran and Iraq as well as oppression of Shia’s by Sunni minority in the past in Iraq give you any clue?

  • Azra

    But what benefit is to Iran to promote Sectarian violence? I mean Mullah is anything but stupid and we have counties in Iran which the majority are Sunnis. Promoting Sunni/Shia violence could spill over to that area of Iran. I am very suspicious of what I am told in MSM, all the same I can only say honestly do not know. You might be right, on the other hand….

  • Tom Welsh

    “The Iraqi governmnet executed 34 people in a single day last week, and judicial killings are running at over 600 people a year”.

    Wow, that’s more than Texas! (318 last year, down from 454 in 2004).

  • ingo

    what would stop anyone experienced in false flagging events, to go out killing shia’s to pretend its done by Sunni’s and then go out the next night, killing some sunni’s, in the name of shiadom?

    If someone wants to inflame Iran and Iraq, indeed the whole muslim world, that would be a way to do it and I would not rule out such or similar scenario. We are building up to something, Azra, but I share your suspicions as to who did what where?

  • DonnyDarko

    I’m beginning to think that mission is accomplished in Iraq and Libya. The goal was to bomb them back into the stoneage, rid them of all the benefits of modern society and stir up tribal hatereds,because that is the legacy of US and NATO driven foreign intervention.
    The people of Baghdad struggle to get fresh water despite there being a huge river running through it.back to torture,back to the worst of Saddam & Co.For some reason they didn’t want the Iraqi’s to keep the good things he’d given them.
    Every time I hear of a bomb blast in Iraq, I see the pictures of those two SAS soldiers dressed as Arabs , arrested with a car full of bomb making materials…
    We were creating anarchy in Basra, maybe they’ve just moved North.

  • Tom Welsh

    OK, I got the Texas executions figure grossly wrong. There were 318 on death row; in fact, only 43 people were executed in the whole USA in 2011 (1277 since 1976).

  • Tom Welsh

    “The goal was to bomb them back into the stoneage, rid them of all the benefits of modern society and stir up tribal hatreds,because that is the legacy of US and NATO driven foreign intervention”.

    Also – and I think this is often overlooked – simply to remind other governments that it’s unhealthy to refuse Washington whatever it asks for. As Voltaire said of the British government’s intentions in shooting Admiral Byng, “pour encourager les autres” (“to encourage the others”).

  • Uzbek in the UK

    Tom Welsh
    You can replace Washington with any capital of present days world’s major power and the same truth will apply. It is only a matter of time before economic development (by which enrichment was understood) will bring (or encourage) political elites to use military power to secure supply of resources and markets. This was something that was said by Marx in his Capital. Although, witnessing Marxism in practise I hugely disagree with it, I shall admit that theoretical Marxism perfectly describes what was and what is going on in the world today. Fare to add here that Socialist USSR where practical Marxism was in place was not far behind its imperialistic adversaries in exploitation and domination.

  • Kenny Boy (Fedup)

    @Uzbek In The UK
    Why do you make things up?
    The simplest of facts are twisted and turned by your kind, without any attention to the merits of the subject at hand; Who will benefit from any sectarian strife in Iraq?
    Certainly not Iran. Therefore, why Iran should engage in any activities that does not further her interests, and more to the point hampers and harms the progression of those interests?
    Iran’s policy in Iraq is far more sophisticated than the cowboy dreamt up US and coalition of the dumb policies of promotion of “sectarianism”. Furthermore, any sane individual would acknowledge that sectarianism is the policy choice of the weak, stemming from an awareness of a distinct lack of strength and capabilities.
    [Mod/jon: added Fedup’s alias, wrong alias was used accidentally]

  • Uzbek in the UK

    @ Kenny Boy
    You said “Who will benefit from any sectarian strife in Iraq? Certainly not Iran”
    Can you explain why Iran would not benefit from supporting Shia in sectarian violence in Iraq?
    Was not Iran fighting wars with Iraq and its Sunni run government where oppression of Shia was partially a reason or the war? Would not Iran largely benefit from Shia dominated Iraq where the role of Sunni is reduced to the second class citizens? Or would Iran benefit from Sunni run Iraq which would naturally ally with Sunni Arab world?

  • Azra

    wow Uzbek, you are putting your foot in it again. Are you forgetting that Iran was not the one who started the war?? it was Iraq which invaded Iran, and what would you expect, for Iranian to open the doors and welcome the invaders??
    Oppression of Shia was never the reason for the war between Iran and Iraq, the reason was the claim of Iraq over Shat-el-Arab water way.
    Iraq is majority Shia, so it would be natural in view of the years of being put down, that Shia will vote for Shia, and the government would be mostly made of Shia! so Iran does not need to cause sectarian strife for that to happen, it will happen naturally. Same as in UK, majority of MPS, Ministers are Caucasian/Christian (although I dont think their religion is a factor), it is just the simple math!

  • Tony

    This is Obama’s ‘new, stable, democratic’ Iraq. Didn’t hear any of these stats in his SOTU speech the other night.

  • Mark Golding - Children of Iraq

    Yes Philip, I like your approach and I read ‘media lies’ thank-you.
    Agreed Ingo – “Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.”
    Mary – ” The Judge who tried him [Tareq Aziz] and Saddam Hussein was “trained” by a legal team from Notre Dame University at South Bend, Indiana, — ironically, a Catholic University.”
    The University of Notre Dame Law School professor who helped train the judges was George HW Bush’s man, Jimmy Gurulé. Jimmy Gurulé was appointed by Dubya on the assertion of his father as U.S. Treasury undersecretary for enforcement. – that of course is the truth about the situation.
    Gurulé had been in the secret service and I am researching his life because he is one of the few insiders into the 2001 ‘terrorist’ attacks!?
    Says it all..

  • kingfelix

    “The war effort in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan has already cost taxpayers more than $2 trillion and could go as high as $4.4 trillion before it’s all over. At least $31 billion (and as much as $60 billion or more) of that $2 trillion was lost to waste and fraud by military contractors, who do everything from janitorial and food service work to construction, security and intelligence — jobs that used to be handled by the military.”

    It was only ever about money-laundering federal $$$ into the accounts of US corporations, hence the whole revolving door thing. It’s what John Perkins’ Confessions of an Economic Hit Man calls the corporatocracy and it’s all still going swimmingly.

    This was why public appetite had to be refreshed with The Surge, not because it would accomplish anything. It simply was a way to ‘reset’ the public and generate a means of staying longer.

  • Nexus4


    Have you read this slur against you by Joshua Foust?

    I talked to him on twitter about US-UK support for Karmov. He said this:

    joshuafoust: No one needs to fund him. Uzbekistan manufactures some things, and has some natural gas. It’s not much but it’s sustaining.

    joshuafoust: No, not fact. Don’t assume anything Craig Murray says is fact. Ever.

    joshuafoust: Murray did more to assure the UK will never do anything positive for Uzbekistan than anyone could have imagined. He’s awful.

    I don’t agree with Foust in the slightest. But he seems to unfortunately hold a lot of weight in intelligence circles. Just thought you should know that there appears to be some type of censoring campaign against you – which greatly perturbs me as I am a great fan of your work.

  • Tris

    Wasn’t the real reason for the invasion and the killing of hundreds of thousands of people that Dick Cheney wanted to boost his company’s profits?

    All this ‘improvements in people’s life’ was never the object.

  • writeon

    I still remember hearing Tony Blair bleating on about how we’d never… honest… hand on heart, turn our backs on the people of Iraq, but would help them turn Iraq into a beacon of democracy and human rights in the Middle East.

    The reasons Iraq had to be destroyed are numerous. But the most important one seems to have been the desire to smash a, or any, nation that had the potential to become a regional power in the Middle East, one that could, at some point, pose a challenge to American hegemony in this vital region.

    Iraq had that potential. It had a reasonably large and well-educated population, a nationlist ideology, a developed economy, a high standard of living, a strong army, and vast hidden wealth under its sand, wealth that was a blessing, but also a potential curse.

    Now Iraq has been smashed to pieces in the most brutal manner imaginable and it’s development has been literally pushed back decades, and it may never really recover, not as a unified state. Saddam was really cut down to size, just like Iraq.

    Now there’s only Syria and Iran left as independent states without American ‘protection’ and it’s the kind of ‘protection’ one hears about in gangster movies, one pays for ‘protection’ or one has an ‘accident.’

    And what’s appalling is how truly ghastly the liberal/left have reacted to the destruction of Iraq and the dreadful human and material cost of our ‘crusade for democracy.’ In a healthy and functioning democracy core people in Tony Blair’s cabinet would be on trial, not earning millions, benefitting from their crimes.

    And even today, after Iraq, and after Libya, the liberal/left, symbolized by the Guardian, have apparently learned absolutely nothing and are even continuing their ‘crusade for democracy’ in relation to Syria and Iran, promoting a crass, propaganda narrative designed to lead us all towards yet more war and more destruction and loss of life on an umimaginable scale.

  • John Goss

    Mary, what a fine article about Tareq Aziz, and what a wonderful summary he made about the purpose of the Iraq war ‘Oil and Israel’.

  • oddie

    iraq, afghanistan, libya – neocon constructive destruction and, looking forward, is China realising the part is could be playing?

    26 Jan: WSJ: Iran Mulls Pre-empting EU Oil Embargo
    Mohammad Karim Abedi, a member of the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee: “It could happen next week, not in six months [the date when] Europe has claimed the boycott will begin,” he said…

    26 Jan: alarabiya: UAE Hormuz bypass pipeline faces more delay
    A strategic pipeline for United Arab Emirates’ oil exports to bypass the Strait of Hormuz could face more delay due to differences with the Chinese construction company, industry sources told Reuters on Thursday…
    Tehran’s rhetoric has put planners under increased pressure to open the pipeline, industry sources told Reuters, but added that a row over how the work has been done threatens even the latest target date.
    “There is political pressure to start this pipeline because of what’s happening with Iran,” a second industry source said, adding that UAE leaders have been involved in overseeing the project…
    “Our impression is that the crude pipeline to Fujairah should be operational by August or September and crude sales will start then,” said a Dubai-based analyst who declined to be named…

    27 Jan: gulf news: UAE can export oil if Iran closes Hormuz
    Strategic pipeline under construction would help bypass supply route
    The 370-kilometre Abu Dhabi Crude Oil Pipeline has been delayed, with Minister of Energy Mohammad Bin Dha’en Al Hameli this month pushing back the start of operations to May or June…
    “Iran is capable of fomenting tension in the region,” Dahi said in the interview, which was rebroadcast yesterday. “We in the Gulf have cards in our hands that allow us to marginalise the role of the strait and undermine its importance.”

  • Courtenay Barnett

    @ Craig,

    ” I am waiting for a neo-con acolyte to tell us now how the “liberal intervention” has greatly improved the lot of the people of Iraq”

    I can’t answer that one, but the one that really should concern us all is the new war that is being promoted with Iran:-

    US foreign policy makers must either be failures in their international relations degree courses in University – or – they simply do not have much practical or common sense ( consider the prevailing scenario concerning Iran):-

    1. Impose sanctions against Iran -then what?:-

    a. Have less oil in the Western market
    b. Cause oil prices to go up; and
    c. Sink the global economy deeper into recession

    2. And what with Iran?:-

    a. China and India are prepared to pay for Iranian oil in gold.
    b. Iran will accept Russian currency for payment of Iranian oil purchases; and
    c. The net result for Iran in a global oil shortage market will be, to cut off the participant EU countries from the supply of Iranian oil, with a direct immediate domestic economic impact on those already ailing EU economies, coupled with increased prices for the alternative oil supplies that those EU countries will be compelled to purchase – and – in the end game more revenue accrue to the Iranian government for the oil that it continues to sell to China, India etc.

    3. And what if the US attacks Iran?:-


    a. Iran has the capacity immediately to inflict heavy counter-strikes on Israel.
    b. South Lebanon is heavily equipped with missiles pointing directly into Israel with huge numbers of missiles and rockets ( we saw a small display of this in the last war from Lebanon – and the Israelis where then impotent – so – what more so now with renewed and well positioned locations to strike Israel?). With weapons so near Israel’s border, which will be launched once Iran is attacked. Is this not a response to the US encircling Iran, but who has the ultimate strategic advantage when it comes to attacks from Syria, Lebanon and long range missiles from Iran into Israel?
    c. The blocking of the Straits of Hormuz and strikes by Iranian cells stationed in all the Western nations that participate in the attack on Iran will promptly be unleashed.

    If I am incorrect on any of the points above, I wait for the State Department and the Pentagon planners, to tell me why, with all the brains and resources that the US has. Why me merely reading the international law applicable to the situation and logically reasoning through the options – can I figure out on my own the total no-win situation and discern the difference between lose-lose positions as opposed to win-lose positions. Me thinks that Washington is clueless as regards the distinction of one from t’other.

    Read on….

    Michael Brenner
    Senior Fellow, the Center for Transatlantic Relations; Professor of International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh
    GET UPDATES FROM Michael Brenner

    Iran: The Road to War?
    Posted: 01/26/2012 10:32 am

    The drums are sounding for war on Iran. The leading Republican presidential candidates pledge military action as soon as they cross the threshold of the White House. The Obama administration sharpens its rhetoric in accompaniment to imposing coercive sanctions. It strong arms its allies to stand with it in confrontation. Israel uses all of its formidable levers of influence to push the United States into war mode. All shades of the media work overtime to stoke fears in a manner reminiscent of the build-up to the Iraq invasion. Amidst all this noise and fury the one thing missing is a sober assessment of the problem and what are suitable approaches to addressing it. This unfortunately has become habitual in American foreign policy.
    American foreign policy over the past 11 years has demonstrated a perverse genius for placing the United States in lose/lose situations. Navigating without a strategic gyroscope, and with maladroit diplomacy run by appointees who have skipped too many grades, we repeatedly have painted ourselves into a corner from which there is no escape other than by taking risky and highly costly expedient actions. That’s true of Afghanistan, Iraq (where Mr. Maliki rubs our noses in our failure by inflicting enhanced humiliation techniques on us weekly), Bahrain/Saudi Arabia, Palestine and — most dangerous of all — Iran. Two successive administrations have presumed to set unrealizable objectives and to try reaching them by ill conceived methods in ignoring the fundamental givens of the situation.

    One, Iran will never forego the option of developing a nuclear capability that is crucial to their objective security needs. It is militarily encircled by the United States, living with nuclear armed neighbors and — in addition — is a Shi’ite island in a Sunni sea. Moreover, the country still lives with the trauma of huge losses in its eight year war with Saddam’s Iraq which was backed by Western and regional powers.
    Two, therefore, sanctions and other means short of war will not work. The stakes are too high for the leadership while the suffering populace in these instances almost always directs its bitterness toward the outsiders who have inflicted the pain.
    Three, the undeclared war by other means that we are conducting confirms the security imperative and solidifies a national consensus on the nuclear issue. A besieged country is acutely aware of its vulnerabilities and feels victimized as well. The paranoid streak in the minds of a political class that has experienced thirty years of conflict and tension prompts the question: why did the world accept the Pakistani “Sunni” bombs but will go to any lengths to prevent Iranians from acquiring a “Shi’ite bomb?” Since the very legitimacy of the Islamic Republic depends on its self identity as the expression of a Shi’ism that historically has suffered persecution by Sunnis, there is a powerful sense of discrimination.
    Four, somehow neutralizing the potentially destabilizing effects of the Iranian nuclear program requires reaching a set of understandings and putting in place arrangements that satisfy the basic security interests of all parties in the Gulf region. Here is what Ephraim Halevy, former chief of Israel’s Mossad and a native of Iran, has to say on this score:
    It is not part of my vocation to stop water from flowing. Iran will have the bomb. If no one does anything Iran will have it in ten years (MB: estimate in 2006), In my capacity as head of Mossad, that is to say insofar as I am one of those responsible for the defense and security of Israel, the only thing that I can do is to push back this date enough by the most subtle means possible in order that we have the time to elaborate, among the West, Iran and us a regional security system which provides guarantees acceptable to everyone.
    Five, talks on the nuclear question that ignore the above are doomed to failure. Insistence on a complete separation of the nuclear issue from broader security concerns can lead at best to a short term marginal slowing of Iran’s predetermined course.
    Six, to paint the Islamic Republic as the epitome of evil and to pursue a veiled strategy of regime change makes serious negotiation impossible. Iranians of all stripes find the country’s depiction as an international pariah intolerable. They resent being treated as a rogue nation denied the rights that other states are accorded routinely while being singled out for the imposition of penalties and constraints.
    Seven, this logic holds despite the Islamic Republic being a noxious regime that has abused its citizens.
    Eight, consequently Washington’s tiptoeing to the brink of conflict puts us in the position of either backing away and thereby losing face and credibility (along with votes for Mr. Obama in November) or taking military action whose effects would be disastrous.
    Conclusion: if you feel it is imperative to deny Iran a nuclear capability, then get ready for a costly war and chaotic aftermath. More and more aggressive coercion short of military action has no hope of resolution; it could bring on war unintentionally, however. Let’s be honest about what we want and the full implications of going after it.

    American post-9/11 imperial ambitions have been driven by the belief in absolute and total security. That has meant military and political domination of the Greater Middle East. In reckless pursuit of this delusional goal, our schemes have founded against the harsh realities of international life. It would be tragic if the curtain falls on a scene of a cataclysmic failure of our own making.

1 2 3 4

Comments are closed.