WAR: Iraqi PM Executed Six Prisoners: Witnesses

Two unidentified Iraqis have come forward to say that they witnessed Iraq's new Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi, execute six accused insurgents. The men were reportedly blindfolded and shot in the head shortly before power was handed over to the new Iraqi government.


"The prisoners were against the wall and we were standing in the courtyard when the Interior Minister said that he would like to kill them all on the spot. Allawi said that they deserved worse than death - but then he pulled the pistol from his belt and started shooting them," said one of the witnesses. "He was very close. Each was shot in the head."



[edit on 16-7-2004 by Banshee]

After reading the article, here's how I see it:

On the one hand you have some unnamed "eye witnesses" who claim they watched as Dr Allawi murdered, in cold blood, some bound, blind folded men, immediately after pronouncing that "they have killed more than 50 people each and deserve more than death".

On the other hand you have a former neighbor who decries it as fantastic and ludicrous. I agree with the neighbor. The rhetoric they credit him with spewing before he blew these guys away sounds terribly similar to the rhetoric we hear form the insurgents, broad sweeping claims (killed 50 each) and the act itself simply does NOT fit the profile of a surgeon, scholar and leader such as Dr. Allawi.

This REEKS of propaganda from the insurgent's side of the fence. I want to hear from the "dozens" of police officers who stood by while he capped six men.

Not a chance.

m...

[edit on 7-16-2004 by Springer]

Here's something else to consider as well.

Do you want to claim the interim government is a puppet to the U.S. or do you want to stay the hell out of their business?

I vote for the latter!

Let them deal with their security threats as they see fit (this is assuming this unsourced "event" took place at all). Does this match the judicial requirements of the U.S.? Nope. Would I want to live in a country that ran things this way....nope. Is it any of my business? nope.

The author/journalist Paul McGeough,

His enemies say he was an assassin for Saddam Hussein. Now Iyad Allawi is accused of personally executing prisoners. Paul McGeough examines the dark background of Iraq's new Prime Minister.

Hold the doctor up to the light and there are flaws in the glass. We are not quite sure how Iyad Allawi became Iraq's interim Prime Minister and no one knows just how and why he fell out with Saddam Hussein. It is unclear whether his preoccupation with security outweighs a professed love for democracy or what that might mean for Iraq's 25 million people.

www.smh.com.au...
Sanc'.

Impressive. He is letting all involved know that he is not merely a hand-wringer. My favorite quote from the original article was this one, from a spokesman for the PM's office who denied the allegations:

"Dr Allawi is turning this country into a free and democratic nation run by the rule of law; so if your sources are as credible as they say they are, then they are more than welcome to file a complaint in a court of law against the Prime Minister."

I agree with Valhall...like it or not, it's none of our business.

Originally posted by jsobecky
I agree with Valhall...like it or not, it's none of our business.

On one hand people are saying kill the dictator, he kills people indiscriminately and on the other hand people are congratulating exactly the same behaviour and saying it's none of our business?



Also, what the hell is an apparently democratic prime minister doing shooting people in the back of the head WITH NO TRIAL?!

Hell, I'm getting brainwashed now, the back of the head is not the way to carry out Justice!



Meet Saddam II: Iyad Allawi

[edit on 16-7-2004 by shanti23]

Originally posted by shanti23

On one hand people are saying kill the dictator, he kills people indiscriminately and on the other hand people are congratulating exactly the same behaviour and saying it's none of our business?

Also, what the hell is an apparently democratic prime minister doing shooting people in the back of the head WITH NO TRIAL?!

Hell, I'm getting brainwashed now, the back of the head is not the way to carry out Justice!

One the face of it, it would appear contradictory, but it is actually very consistent. Iraq is now self-governing, and can impose any type of justice system they choose to. As has been stated, they are not a puppet government; they are under no obligation to mimic our system of justice.

And let us not forget that at this point, these are allegations only. An invitation has been extended to pursue legal action against the PM.

Remember, that insurgency and terrorism is still rampant in Iraq. Allawi needs to take firm control immediately. He also needs to gain the respect and support of his police force, who have been imtimidated in the past. His actions, while extreme to some, may be just what the doctor orderd for now in Iraq.

It is much easier to be a strong leader at first, and then 'soften up' over time, than it is to be a weakling who finds he needs to exert control over chaos.

Finally, a bullet to the back of the head is not uncommon. Russia, for example, will transport the prisoner directly from the courtroom to the back yard to carry out immediate justice.

Edit for typos which drive me nuts


[edit on 16-7-2004 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by jsobecky
a bullet to the back of the head is not uncommon. Russia, for example, will transport the prisoner directly from the courtroom to the back yard to carry out immediate justice.

Well that's all right then.
For a minute there I was under the impression we were a democracy with law and justice, silly me.

Hell, I'm getting the hang of it now I think, line them all up and shoot the bastards.

I take this report with a big grain of salt. I would not really be surprised either way.

Even the USA could (as far as I understand) legally behave like that during martial law... and if their backs were to the wall they probably would.

It's not a good thing but not surprising either. Maybe they are trying to make examples out of people.

First off, I thought we went over there for democracy. This isn't very democratic.

Second, If this guy isn't playing by the rules, then this may be another Saddam in Iraq.

Third, two eye witnesses, if we cry foul that its propagands now considering the circumstances, then we are truly hypocrites.

Fourth, if we leave them to their own devices because of its none of our business, why did we go over there?

Originally posted by shanti23
Well that's all right then.
For a minute there I was under the impression we were a democracy with law and justice, silly me.

Hell, I'm getting the hang of it now I think, line them all up and shoot the bastards.

Well there you go then. No wonder you're confused; we're talking about the actions of an Iraqi PM in his own sovereign country. We're not talkning about the US.

If we were to impose our system of justice on the Iraqis, then I guarantee you that there would be those here that would condemn that.

Even Negroponte says, "Case closed". It's not our business.

What's the debate about?

This man is said to have murdered six suspects. SUSPECTS! No trial. No determination of guilt. Just his personal opinion that they were guilty. By what authority did he take it upon himself to be their jury, judge, and executioner? It's a simple question. What gave him the authority to do that? If he lacked the legal authority, then he's no better than a common murderer under any state's legal system. Describing his act plainly and simply for what it is does not constitute imposing our legal system on him or on Iraq. The Koran condemns murder just as the Christian Bible does and the Iraqi legal system outlaws it just as our legal system does. Those of you applaud this man's brutality ought to take pause and examine your hearts. How brainwashed have you become that you are willing to condone this sort of conduct by anyone! Sadly, you'all have heard and uncritically accepted too much of the Bush Administration's nonsensical rhetoric to the effect that's it's OK to kill anyone we suspect of being against us. What utter B.S.! It's long past time for a change of leadership (or lack thereof).

Originally posted by dubiousone
What gave him the authority to do that?

Ordained by the Order of His Holy Highness: George W Bush.

sarcasm
Better keep quiet or you'll get a bullet to the back of the head too.
/sarcasm

Originally by jsobecky
If we were to impose our system of justice on the Iraqis, then I guarantee you that there would be those here that would condemn that.

OOOk . . .
Explain again to me the reason for invading Iraq and killing lots of innocent people. . . because I'm getting confused

[edit on 17-7-2004 by shanti23]

Originally posted by dubiousone
What's the debate about?

This man is said to have murdered six suspects.

What gave him the authority to do that? If he lacked the legal authority, then he's no better than a common murderer under any state's legal system. Describing his act plainly and simply for what it is does not constitute imposing our legal system on him or on Iraq. The Koran condemns murder just as the Christian Bible does and the Iraqi legal system outlaws it just as our legal system does.

Exactly. He is SAID to have done this. Where is the proof? Really, I don't care where it is, because it is Iraq's problem now, not ours. Bringing our state's legal systems into this is pointess, since we're talking about Iraq, not the US. If they want to impose this type of justice, so be it. Not our business.

And please, don't bring the Quran, or religion, into this. Those discussions never lead anywhere, because their very basis is fable. Sorry if I offended anyone with that, seriously.

And I can't debate your points about

How brainwashed have you become that you are willing to condone this sort of conduct by anyone! Sadly, you'all have heard and uncritically accepted too much of the Bush Administration's nonsensical rhetoric to the effect that's it's OK to kill anyone we suspect of being against us.

because it it too emotional, as well as ridiculous.

It all comes back to a lack of proof, or any coherent story at all, doesn't it? Sounds like gutter-tripe straight from the alleys of Sadr City to me. (Just MO!)

Even if the story were indeed true, at least he had the decency not to saw their heads off in hopes for free worldwide airtime.

And why is it so hard to believe that these 6 people could be responsible for 50 deaths? Far more innocent Iraqis are killed by these insurgents, excuse me, "freedom fighters", than their alleged enemies. (Who aren't occupiers now, I may add, but guests of a soverign government recognized by the UN, who have been invited to stay and help secure the peace. Does the Middle-Eastern/Muslim code of honor for guests only apply to terrorists?) If this insurgency continues at present rate, there will eventually be no civillians left to "free", as they'll have killed them all.

Originally posted by shanti23
OOOk . . .
Explain again to me the reason for invading Iraq and killing lots of innocent people. . . because I'm getting confused

[edit on 17-7-2004 by shanti23]

Innocent people are aways unfortunately killed during wartime. So, since we didn't go into Iraq to intentionally kill innocent people, that part of the discussion is done. Agreed?

Saddam ignored 17 UN resolutions. We had reason to believe that he had WMDs, or the capacity and will to build and use them or sell them. We weren't the only ones to believe this, BTW...practically the entire free world also believed it. BEFORE Bush was elected, BTW.

The world sees this:

American puppet prime minister dispensing American justice in Iraq.

and no, we're not agreed in the slightest.

You can stand with this action, or distance yourself, that choice is now.

[edit on 17-7-2004 by shanti23]

The world sees a lot of things, that doesn't make it the truth.

So, which is he? American puppet or another Saddam? Can't very well be both...oh, wait. He could be a man who wants to see his country attain it's previous prosperity and is willing to fight those who would not see it do so. I'm not saying it's any of these, but it would seem to me that no-one wants to even acknowledge #3 as a remote possibility. Is this so far-fetched?

Q, it doesn't matter what is true or not true - how it appears is all that matters.

I thought that would be evident by now.
Do you think extremists would subscribe to your point of view?

Originally by Q
He could be a man who wants to see his country attain it's previous prosperity and is willing to fight those who would not see it do so.

This is what we all hope, however - shooting suspects in the back of the head means the honeymoon period is over.

Oh, there was no honeymoon period, nor will there ever be if these actions continue.

Maybe there's a reason he's struggling to retain control of 'his' people.

The news for the newly designated Iraqi prime minister, Iyad Allawi, was not as good. While the poll was taken just before he was named to head the new interim government, 61 percent said they either strongly oppose or somewhat oppose Allawi, a former exile once backed by the CIA. Only 23 percent said they somewhat support or strongly support him.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

[edit on 17-7-2004 by shanti23]

Originally posted by shanti23
The world sees this:

American puppet prime minister dispensing American justice in Iraq.

Let's hope the world waits until the truth is established first. And that was NOT American-style justice anyway. But then, for some, why let the facts get in the way of a good story?