The Real Head-Drilling “Butchers” of Iraq

The most harrowing scene in American Sniper involves an Iraqi character nicknamed “The Butcher” torturing and executing an Iraqi child by taking a power drill to his skull. The scene lends credibility to the narrative of Chris Kyle as basically a hero facing villains. In the film, “The Butcher” is a lieutenant of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Sunni insurgent, terrorist, and founder of Al Qaeda in Iraq, which later became ISIS.

However, in the Iraq of the real world, power drilling human heads is more of a predilection, not of Sunni insurgents, but of their enemies in the Shiite militias.

Abu Deraa
Abu Deraa

For one, there is the warlord Abu Deraa, nicknamed “the Shiite Zarqawi,” who according to the UK’s Sunday Times (emphasis added):

“…is thought to be responsible for the murder of thousands of civilians, mostly Sunnis, and is said to take personal delight in killing — sometimes with a bullet to the head, sometimes by driving a drill into the skulls of his victims. On other occasions, Iraqis say, he gives them a choice of being shot or battered to death with concrete building blocks.”

AQI/ISIS falsely claimed to have killed him in 2006, but after years of hiding in Iran, he recently reemerged in Baghdad once again leading a militia.

Hadi al-Amiri
Hadi al-Amiri

Then there is Hadi al-Amiri, head of the Iran-backed Badr Brigade. According to The Washington Post, “A leaked 2009 State Department cable said sources had indicated that Amiri may have personally ordered attacks on up to 2,000 Sunnis.” The Post continues (emphasis added):

“…in 2005 and 2006, sectarian killings in Iraq surged as Badr death squads worked under the cloak of the police force.

The 2009 State Department cable, referring to that era, said that ‘one of [Amiri’s] preferred methods of killing allegedly involved using a power drill to pierce the skulls of his adversaries.‘”

Electric Drill Amiri is now, according to the Post, effectively the head of security in Iraq:

“Iraq’s parliament voted Saturday to put an affiliate of an Iranian-backed paramilitary group in charge of a key security ministry, a move that could strike a serious blow to efforts to unite Sunnis and Shiites to wrest back their country from Islamist extremists.

The new interior minister is Mohammed Ghabban, a little-known Shiite politician with the Badr Organization. But there is little doubt that Hadi al-Amiri, head of the party and its military wing, will wield the real power in the ministry.”

Both of these Iran-sponsored real-life head-drilling “butchers” of Iraq rose to power thanks to the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, and are now commanding forces either in the US-backed Iraqi government, or under its protection, fighting alongside the US military against the now ISIS-led Sunni insurgency. At the end of the day, the American Sniper was not the enemy of the Iraqi Butchers, but their benefactor.

As radio host Scott Horton never tires reminding his listeners, the chief role of the American troops in Iraq was to fight a bloody civil war on behalf of the Shiite side and to install Iran-backed Shiite militias in power. These militias used death squads to ethnically cleanse Baghdad and other cities of Sunnis, and, as Will Grigg never tires reminding his readers, imposed a Sharia-compliant constitution over a once-secular country. This Shiite jihad was, in effect, Chris Kyle’s true mission, for which millions of American Christians now lionize him.

140 thoughts on “The Real Head-Drilling “Butchers” of Iraq”

  2. Flavour of this article is anti Shia and anti Iran. Please be moderate in your future writings. Only one party or faith or a country is not responsible for todays Iraq.

    1. It's not intended to be, Raza. It's intended to be anti-US-intervention, and that's it. It just so happens, that this angle of making the case against US-intervention involves the absurdity, hypocrisy, and immorality of US policy in Iraq vis-a-vis Iran's own interventionism and the most brutal elements of the Shiite side in a civil war in which there is brutality on both sides.

      Almost every other article I've written on Iraq focuses instead on how US intervention foments terrorism and brutality on the Sunni side.

      For example, see:
      http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/07/dan-sanchez/pu… http://antiwar.com/blog/2014/07/14/frankensteinia… http://antiwar.com/blog/2014/09/22/playing-with-f…

      I wasn't being anti-Sunni-as-such then, and I'm not being anti-Shia-as-such now. I'm just being anti-intervention.

      I think it's reasonable for Antiwar.com pieces especially to be given the benefit of the doubt on questions like this, so as to avoid the kind of exhaustively hedged and qualified writing which makes for poor reading.

    2. Iranian people money is spent on militants in Iraq while Iranian people themselves are starving, exactly like american taxpayer is spent on undue wars. Iranians do NOT support them.

  3. Anti Shia and anti Iran ranting. The result of an illegal invasion by aggressive western forces evolved into a dreadful sectarian civil war. That civil war was primarily driven by Saudi Arabian finance and Sunni bombers. Iran played such a minor role in all that occurred within Iraq following the war and occupation by USA forces. It is both dishonest and deliberately misleading to imply that Iran did!

    While its perfectly true to say Iran had major interests in what was happening on its neighbor's territory it behaved with honor and with admirable restraint. It has watched Iraq being destroyed and likely dismantled. It has been both supportive and has acted with integrity while it cannot be blind to an existential threat to its own safety. Anybody who gives such credence to reports from the Washington Post or the Sunday Times needs their heads examined.

    I agree with don nash and Raza.

    1. > Anti Shia and anti Iran ranting
      > Defending psychos in your ranks

      A pox on all their houses. The civilians in between get it one way or another. This is a repeat feature of human history all over the world.

      And really, it's gonna get worse. Once ISIS collapses like an overblown pudding, there will be more killings under the banner of cleansing.

  4. I think the most harrowing scene from "American Sniper" may be the first one. It starts off with Kyle on the roof in a moonscape of a devastated city, and I think Eastwood's point in starting there is to show that it was the US that caused this destruction. Anyway, then Kyle is reluctantly forced to kill a bomb-carrying woman and child in order to save his buddies. In fact, all Kyle was ever trying to do in the film was save his buddies – even while he was deserting his wife and children. The film never once, at least to my recollection, said that we were right to be in Iraq.

    Agreed, most movie-goers never think much beyond the surface, so many will come away thinking how great Kyle was – and the USA is. But Eastwood (and Bradley Cooper's terrific performance as Kyle) is far more nuanced than that. "American Sniper" is hardly, in my opinion, a piece of "USA,USA" jingoism.

    1. It is a piece of "USA,USA" jingoism. at its lowest.The movie farther propagates the lie that Iraq was behind 9/11 and Americans were there to avenge it!'Kyle was ever trying to do in the film was save his buddies" who invaded the woman and the child country .

    2. MY NAME = Billy-Boss-BloodEarth,not really original hee.HaHa.!! USA-Sniper(s) ;Like too 'write book(s), okayyy..á n d… the otherone(s) outoff Irak, Afgnstn, Somalie, Jemen North/Sud or S-Arabie or Kenia or Aden enso, they make dvd's to sell and distrubuut and A L S Ó try too make PaperénCoins, dús, MoNeY…Yeeaahh.!!!
      Whát do we , ignorend people, then have THINK -THE G O V E R M E NT (SOWELL, Republ ór Democrat) are doing overthere?!? HiHiHo, WARRR ISSS BIGGG BUSINESSS, MY READERS.
      PATRIOTS, WE'RE MEAT-VOLUNTEERSSSSSSSSSS, YESS "S h i t _ shit, I''m Ass-SHOT.!!!

  5. Those criminals do not represent Iran nor Iranian people. Exposing their crimes is what a principled non-interventionist expected to do.

  6. When I first read this it also seemed to come across as anti-Iran and anti-Shiite but the fact is that these are not Good guys at all. No this doesn't mean the Persians are horrible people or that Shiites are but it does do us any good to ignore facts.

    I know that right now the anti-war movement is for the most part taking the side of Assad in Syria and Iran over Israel. I get that and understand it because both Syria and Iran have been the victims of US interventionism and in particular we don't want to see Iran getting bombed either.

    However, the reality is that we shouldn't be pro Assad or pro Iran either. We should just stick to being anti-war and anti-interventionist. Iran isn't always "right" just because we have done wrong by them and neither is Assad. Iran doesn't exactly have the greatest human rights standing and Assad certainly didn't either.

    1. I agree that if we removed ourselves from this quagmire, Assad and Iran would take care of IS a hell of a lot faster than we will. Washington doesn't really want to take out IS totally. That would upset our Israeli and Saudi masters.

  7. Hollow and baseless speculation. Waste of Time …….

    Abu Deraa has not been seen for years. Had Amiri is an Iraqi exiled to Iran during Saddam time but returned in 2003.

    Copy & paste failed job. Plz grow up and respect the reader's time.

    Drills story is a media fiction and not single witness/victim or credible evidence has been put forward so far.

    Blatant anti-Shia prejudice and sick speculation

  8. Hadi Al-Amiri is working with Sunnis in Diyala and Dolouyia to end ISIS terrorism and rid them the Sunnis of ISIS extremists

    ISIS & terrorists target Shia areas with IEDs, Suicide bombers and car bombs on a daily basis, yet Shia & Sunni in Iraq pray together, inter-marry and fight together

  9. The overriding thought to all of this is that NONE of this would have happened/ be happening now had the US minded its business and not invaded Iraq in the first place. In fact, of the present unrest and bloodshed in the Middle East has been caused by or greatly exacerbated by the meddling of the US. We can 'what if' all day long, I know, but the naked truth is that had we not turned the region upside-down (and for what?) we'd be looking at a FAR different world right now.

    1. Ever heard of 911. That was just the largest of many terrorist attacks on Americans by people in the middle east. Iran is a state sponsor of terrorist and is a terrorist nation run by fanatics. The US didn't start the war radical Muslims started the war we are just going to finish it.

      1. You might want to check your facts, Dave- Iran had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. That would be Saudi Arabia, a little tidbit that is only now being leaked to the public.

        As for Iran being a 'terrorist nation' that's a designation we use against anyone we don't like at any given minute s we can have a clear conscience when we put illegal sanctions on them. Note the MeK, a real terrorist outfir operating from Iran who was on our list until some bright boy figured out they could be useful to us- then they mysteriously disappeared from our list. Same thing with Cuba- how long have they been on the list, despite not doing anything to anyone for the last half-century?

        Note, too, that the main benefactor of Iran is Hezbollah in Lebanon- and guess why Hezbollah was created? It was created in the 80's to help resist the illegal occupation of Lebanon by Israel- a situation Hezbollah worked tirelessly to oppose and eventually drove Israel out. Iran has been known to aid Hamas is Gaza at times, but guess what? That group is resisting- again- Israeli occupation and blockade.

        Now who do you think is funding the Islamic State and its fighters? It's not Iran, I guarantee you- that would be, surprise! Saudi Arabia.

        Now exactly which war are you referring to 'the Muslims' starting? Our invasion of Iraq- a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11, or Afghanistan- another nation that had nothing to do with 9/11? Or are you referring to the rise of the Islamic State, which is a direct result of our destruction of Iraq? Or the war against Syria, in which we've switched sides so many times nobody knows who we're supporting any longer?

        You can rant and rave about 'Muslim terrorists' all you like, but make sure you're not painting all Muslims with the same brush. And, while you're at it, don't blame Iran for anything we or our 'allies' are the real guilty parties.

        1. Your accusations against the US and the West are all baseless and conspiracy theories at best. Arab and Muslims have done nothing good for this world, and can't even reform to modern times. The Middle East is the quagmire that is cursing this world, and only because of the vast amounts of oil. Once that worthless excuse of human existence runs out of oil, you and your Arab and Muslim cockroaches will be no more than poor goat herders. What has any country in the middle east done for the world today? What innovation, or science has Islam produced? The BS claims that Islam invented Algebra and other science was only because of the cultures it conquered. Islam attacked Europe first by invading Spain and almost breaking through to France. Only superior European tactics and technology beat back the Muslim horde. During the Crusades small numbers of Crusaders slaughtered superior numbered Muslims more times than the reverse. The true is the same for today. 4 Arab nations could not even beat Israel, because your culture and religion are morally bankrupt and inferior. That is the real angst in the Middle East today. US superiority and moral foundation produced two of the world's most Democratic and productive societies today. They are known as Germany and Japan, something this idiotic blog would never support. We still have troops stationed in these two countries, and Iraq and Afghanistan would be better countries today if it weren't for the foreign policy rookie Obama. The empirical facts you see today validate my point beyond any doubt. The United States saved the world in WW1, and WW2, and it would be a worse place without it. I challenge any response to suggest a country that would have been a better superpower who only resorted to war as a last resort. This naive and idiotic blog would never exist if the US followed it own suggestion that non-interventionism works.

  10. Typically the Premier league is known as the Barclays Top-quality League for the purpose of sponsorship points. It can be described as British experienced league for the purpose of football dance clubs. Twenty dance clubs contest through this league. <a href="http://www.scorespro.com” target=”_blank”>www.scorespro.com

  11. Pingback: Talk:American Sniper (film) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia | ???? ?????? ? ?????? ??? ?????

Comments are closed.

viewpoint highlights
breaking news
© 2024 Antiwar.com. All rights reserved.
Antiwar.com Blog Stock Photos provided by our partner Depositphotos