It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Breaking News: Two Others Hung!

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 05:39 AM
Hanging someone is not justice and it is certainly not democracy.

how can the governments of UK and US allow this?

I think the general answer to this is that they have no control over the middle east, they have what they went for, the remaining soldiers my thaughts are with you,

Welcome to the new world, Corruption and greed rule, the good man is a dying breed.

Daz Out.

posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 05:46 AM

Originally posted by u4itornot
just saw it on fox news, wonder if it was done in the same manner as
saddams hanging.

Well from what I read one of the men hung was actualy decapitated by the hanging. Kinda disturbing. wheres the guy with the cell phone camera when you need him? (I know that was kinda gross)

Three down many many many more to go.

posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 10:50 AM
I'm thinking 'Hangings' are not as easy as they make them look on cell phones

This furthers the learning curve for the Iraq Judicial System. As long as they learn from their mistakes, what more can we ask.

I'm pretty sure the guys being hung were the ones that normally handled the 'Death by Execution' hangings before. Maybe if they had of been consulted prior to this, things may have gone differently.

Wow I'm awlful.

posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 11:27 AM

I may sound brutal and sadistic, but so are the people who deserve such a punishment.

Unrealised What would be the purpose of your brutal and sadistic punishment? Do you think the death penalty is good deterrent against people becoming leaders who… Could offer Iraq social stability, the conditions for a westernised economy (and one before our sanctions), plus perpetual victory in the war against Muslim fundamentalism (which like everywhere else is a war the fundamentalists declare on secular people first and foremost, because of their perceived religious duties).

The Ba’th party brought Iraqis many benefits that Iraqis no longer have (subsidised food, petrol, water, education and healthcare). So much so that even the Shiites are now complaining about their “lives being better under Saddam”.
Which is so correct; when today you can’t even cross Baghdad on foot without being shot at, when you know any political opinion is grounds for execution in the eyes of a local militia, just as any signs of wealth are grounds for your kidnap in the eyes of local criminal organisations (which are regularly linked to these same militia).

Or do think brutal and sadistic punishments are a good way of setting ways of doing things that Iraqis should to aspire to? If so (judging by your moral logic) then the U.S army has a lot to learn from them.
We could execute people with an axe, in front of a camera which videos the condemned’s last pleas to their families-friends, hay we could even have loud Islamic music in the background; (or being American) how about Jazz or Techno?

Souljah Don’t be surprised by peoples responses. It’s the same pro-war type minded people who now dominate this section. I believe it’s a sign that most people (apart from them) have already formed rock solid opinions, on Iraq if not other things.

posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 11:27 AM

History: Hanging is one of the most ancient forms of execution. The Book of Esther, for example, centers on the hanging of the genocidal traitor Haman, and British and U.S. law have always incorporated death by hanging. Although most states have abolished this practice, New Hampshire and Washington still allow prisoners to choose this option. The most recent legal U.S. hanging took place in 1996.

Unsavory Overtones: Over the past century, hanging has become nearly synonymous with the lynchings of African Americans in the American South, and of Hispanics in the Midwest and California.

How It Works: The prisoner stands on trapdoor, and a rope descends from a wooden beam overhead. The rope is fastened around the prisoner's neck in a "Hangman's noose," which tightens when pulled upon. The executioner pulls a lever opening the trapdoor and dropping the prisoner, who ideally dies quickly due to a broken neck.

Complications: The length of the rope must be carefully calibrated in proportion to the prisoner's weight. If the rope is too short, insufficient velocity is generated to break the prisoner's neck and the prisoner is painfully strangled to death. If the rope is too long, excessive velocity is generated and decapitation may result. Even if the rope is of exactly the right length, a prisoner with an exceptionally large or strong neck may suffer strangulation rather than immediate death.

Now maybe some of you can stop complaining that the decapitation was on purpose.

posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 11:43 AM
ferretman2 I'm sure most people could envisage how a hanging could easily become a decapitation.
But given that we are handing over these people to self declared supporters of people like Muqtada-al-Sadr (certainly in Saddam’s case) then its right to ask whether these people botched the hanging deliberately.
In my opinion they are a lot worse than the people they hang, no matter what might be true about those we have caused the hanging of.

posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 12:02 PM
Hanging was far too good for these scum! They should have slowly lowered them feet first into a tree shredder. This is the torture Sadaam and his sons used to practice and it should have been the way they went out of this world. Those who live by the shredder should die by the shreddder.

[edit on 1-16-2007 by groingrinder]

posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 06:07 PM

Originally posted by Liberal1984

Oh I think it matters. It says a bit about how the guy died, a lot more about how angry people will be; and even more about the incompetent government of American haters (but who to date the U.S President still calls “friends”).
Well judging from your opinions is that your spelling of it too?

It was probably an accident, that his head popped off like a champagne cork.
The only extra anger generated will be stirred by mass media..
In this case however, that may not even happen.

posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 10:41 PM
Well spacedoubt I suppose there’s a limit to how angry we Ba’th Party supporters can get. We’ve already lost Saddam; and I'm fully aware that the Ba’th Party has a new leader.
Therefore we must look to him for an alternative future to oppose Muslim extremism in Iraq. In fact I reckon we should always look to the Ba’th Party for a Western style economy, one which will put the murderous religious fundamentalists who have started the current chaos exactly where they belong.

But to your assumption that the decapitation was a mistake; all I can say is that: Muqtada-al-Sadr and his supporters aren’t exactly well known for their generosity are they?

Saddam Demonised...
Originally posted by groingrinder

They should have slowly lowered them feet first into a tree shredder. This is the torture Sadaam and his sons used to practice and it should have been the way they went out of this world.

Nice propaganda groingrinder!!! Fact is that little story was made up and its well known to be so…

Pro Ba’th Party Link
Mainstream News Links…

Honestly if people like you groingrinder weren’t brainwashed from playgroup onwards to so easily believe such # then there wouldn’t be a need to make it up in the first place.
Also IF Saddam is so bad why did the pro war lobby feel the need to invent stuff about him being bad?

I suppose that’s a good question?

posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 12:22 AM
Hey LIBERAL1984 if you think that saddam and his killers were such great people and didnt deserve to be hanged then you need some serious help. We dont need to go over all that was done by him and his men but they should have done it in a stadium so all of IRAQ and the world could have seen it live on tv. So stop complaning about how it was done they got what was deserved so get over it because its done.

posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 02:30 AM
:yawn: The executions aren't worth anything more then a passing glance. The death of a couple former leaders wont do anything to improve the security situation or produce any leaders that can give birth to the nation of Iraq.

posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 02:07 PM
UncleSam27 you can go on all you like about the alleged crimes committed by Saddam; and I do not suppose all of them are made up ether.
But I’ll retort back the 650,000 Iraqis (and counting) who have lost their lives due to the violence our invasion-occupation has “liberated”. See; I too can name despicable crimes like (rape, death by dismemberment, mutilation ect) and unlike the pro-war lobby I’ve never ever needed to make up any of it. In fact there is a daily supply of new such crimes coming out of Iraq everyday (never mind the ones which have already been committed in between now and 2003).

Crimes like these have been committed not just under an occupation; but also under a democratically elected Iraq government.
So I think you

need some serious help
about is your apparent belief that Iraq is not “one of those places in the world” where democracy can never work; and should never have been attempted (especially given the colonial experience of the past empires).
Furthermore people like me (who I might guess know a hell of lot more than you about Iraq) accurately predicted that all this would happen way in advance of a democratic government even been formed. The lessons of the British rule of the 1920’s are just as relevant as they are today; because let’s face it Iraqi culture has hardly changed in the last 400 years (let alone the last 80).

The Problem…
1. Iraq is a place that needs a dictatorship for a number of reasons. By far the most important is the number of religious fundamentalists within its own population. Course chiefly they are Shiite, but they are also Sunni. The problem is that (by virtue of being fundamentalists) they believe it is literally their God given duty to impose-force their beliefs on others.
And whenever ethnic-religious groups have attempted this in Iraq, there has always been a backlash against those responsible. This backlash takes the form of terrorism, just as efforts to force others to comply with their religious beliefs also take the form of terrorism (for example the kidnap and mutilation of Iraqi women who refuse to where the veil).
2. The next step is that out of fear (often confirmed by real necessity) is that people form their own local-area security-protection groups.
3. Almost from the day these groups are formed, the security groups become quickly politicized. From their they have just succeeded in becoming a militia, and because they are often linked to other (like minded militia) then through the emergence of these extensive they have in fact become terrorist organisations.
It’s because the sorts of people who join these militia are often prepared to die for their communities that the political orientation of these protection, militia or terrorists groups (is almost inevitably) highly radicalised.
4. All these group tend to fund themselves through activities like extortion and kidnap of their rivals; and furthermore they tend to keep a keen eye open for anyone opposed to their own views.
Hence (for Iraqis), democracy is on a very local and personalised level effectively thwarted. And unless they happen to back the radicalised views of their local army, they may feel wise to stay away-boycott the poles. Therefore when the votes are counted the radicalised are massively over represented; and everyone else is massively under represented.
5. This is what Iraq will have to deal with come the next elections; because the violence is so much worse than almost every last time (in any point in past times).

What Saddam Did That No One Has…
One thing Saddam did that no Iraqi democracy can do and no fundamentalists dictatorship would attempt to do; is fill the ranks of Iraqi government with secular, plus pro western aspiring individuals (Ba’thists).
Some where only secular because it was their job, and they were career employees, others where secular because they were real believers in basic things like “it serves no economic-practical purpose to impose religious beliefs on others, unless you are oppressing those who wish to impose their beliefs on you-others.”
Ether way the government of Iraq was subsequently dominated (and so also commanded) by secular individuals.
If only the vast majority of Iraqis in government subscribed to these views today; then there would be nothing wrong in expecting them to successfully crack down on the violence, on indeed eventually form the conditions for a functional Iraqi democracy (in the long term of course because this will take decades to do).

Pre-1991 was about the closest time Iraq ever came to being right for a democracy, and immediately after the 2003 invasion was the closest time Iraqi society has ever been under the occupation.
However even pre-1991 there were still plenty of fundamentalists willing to impose their beliefs on others; if only someone would stop oppressing them.
When we disbanded the Iraqi secret police, then took a year to hold elections; it was already too late because the violence was already out of control (even though it was much less than it is today).

The current “Iraqi democracy” does stupid things like give newly issued police uniforms to militia so that they can visit places like universities, round up students, release the ones of a particular sect; then torture the rest of the poor students to death.

This demonstrates perfectly why a secular dictatorship is needed to fill the ranks of Iraqi government with secular people. If that could be done then police uniforms, weapons, American training; and other such things would be NOT be being issued to some of the most extreme terrorists, so that they can fight in the name of some of most simplistic causes (i.e. religious warfare).
Saddam’s government did that; and that is the first reason why I have great admiration for the vast majority of those individuals who were selected to take senior posts within it.

I recognise that although its rate of death was less than the rate of death caused by “the violence of liberation”; it was still responsible for many deaths. However many of those people were in fact guilty of religious extremism, or efforts to politically establish religious extremism, or engage in foreign (namely Iranian funded) treason.

BUT: Even so; having taken these people into account, there were still deaths of many innocent people. But although the Ba’th party did commit actions which would entail their deaths, unlike the terrorists it did not go out of its way to weaken (ether itself or Iraq) by targeting completely innocent people (in fact terrorists seem to think this strengthens themselves).

In other words when you look at the numbers of people dying today at the hands of terrorists, militia or kidnappers the deaths of these innocent people is a massively small price to pay (in comparison of course). It’s known as “the lesser of two evils” and both prosperity and life itself have always paid great attention to choosing “the lesser of two evils”. E.g. every decision from choosing a half rotten, or clean apple from a tree is about, to using your feet or car to make a short journey, involves these.

It’s about time we got our act together and choose the lesser of two evils for Iraq; rather than watch it side with our enemy Iran (which we may some day wish to bomb).

Therefore (even if it was necessary to kill Saddam as a figure head) the killing of his brothers; AND especially other less connected senior Ba’thists is entirely wrong; (not least because the next proper and functional government of Iraq will surely need someone like them?).

<< 1   >>

log in