Web site says American captive beheaded

[wdlove]

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- An al Qaeda-linked Web site showed video Tuesday of a man who identified himself as an American and then was beheaded.

His captors said the United States refused to exchange him for prisoners in the Abu Ghraib prison.

"For the mothers and wives of American soldiers, we tell you that we offered the U.S. administration to exchange this hostage for some of the detainees in Abu Ghraib and they refused," says a hooded man standing behind the American.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/11/iraq.main/index.html

[mactastic]

Sorry wdlove, but this belongs in the political section. You know this will get out of hand fast.

[wdlove]

This is a vey sad atrocity of war. My prayers go out to the family and friends of Nicholas Berg. Hopefully this will wake Americans up to what this War on terrorism is really about. Our very lives as we know it is at stake. Iraq just happens to be a theatre in the war. I don't consider it to be political at all, but patriotism and our way of life.

For resepect of Nicholas please don't be political. :(

[mactastic]

Hopefully it will be investigated by professionals. They need to look at motive and opportunity as to why this happened. Such as who does it help and hurt most. The pictures certainly look staged.

[Sayhey]

This is a vey sad atrocity of war. My prayers go out to the family and friends of Nicholas Berg. Hopefully this will wake Americans up to what this War on terrorism is really about. Our very lives as we know it is at stake. Iraq just happens to be a theatre in the war. I don't consider it to be political at all, but patriotism and our way of life.

For resepect of Nicholas please don't be political. :(

I think we all understood what the war on terrorism was all about after 9/11. If there are any who believe al Qaeda or its splinter groups are anything but murdering thugs who want the world to go back to feudal times, then they are a very, very small minority. However, don't tell me I have to support Bush's war in Iraq to reject and fight against al Qaeda. I too send my sympathies to Mr. Berg's family and friends. Please don't think that those who disagree with Bush aren't as horrified by this execution as you.

[Lyle]

Hopefully it will be investigated by professionals. They need to look at motive and opportunity as to why this happened. Such as who does it help and hurt most. The pictures certainly look staged.The CNN.com story (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/11/iraq.main/index.html) claims that his body has been found in Baghdad. Unfortunately, it sounds as though this was not staged.

[Lyle]

I think we all understood what the war on terrorism was all about after 9/11. If there are any who believe al Qaeda or its splinter groups are anything but murdering thugs who want the world to go back to feudal times, then they are a very, very small minority. However, don't tell me I have to support Bush's war in Iraq to reject and fight against al Qaeda. I too send my sympathies to Mr. Berg's family and friends. Please don't think that those who disagree with Bush aren't as horrified by this execution as you.Yes, but it seems to be the case (e.g. according to this Reuters story (http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=508797&section=news)) that this was an act of al Qaeda's top guy in Iraq.

[IJ Reilly]

Yes, but it seems to be the case (e.g. according to this Reuters story (http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=508797&section=news)) that this was an act of al Qaeda's top guy in Iraq.

Perhaps, but how was it exactly that Al Qaeda came to have a presence in Iraq?

[Lyle]

Perhaps, but how was it exactly that Al Qaeda came to have a presence in Iraq?Good question. I mean, I keep hearing that there's no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. Maybe Reuters got the story wrong.

[Sayhey]

Yes, but it seems to be the case (e.g. according to this Reuters story (http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=508797&section=news)) that this was an act of al Qaeda's top guy in Iraq.

Whoever did this, and yes I understand it is likely that it was done by al Qaeda, should be hunted down and punished. None of that is an endorsement of Bush's war.

[IJ Reilly]

Good question. I mean, I keep hearing that there's no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. Maybe Reuters got the story wrong.

No, you were hearing that there wasn't any connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. After the invasion, Al Qaeda operatives moved into Iraq. The one cited in this story as a leader is Jordanian.

[zimv20]

so -- is mr. berg's death more tragic than those killed in abu ghraib prison?

[dopefiend]

so -- is mr. berg's death more tragic than those killed in abu ghraib prison?


Yup. :D

From what I read of one occurence as found in this link ( linky (http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/iraq/abu-ghurayb-prison.htm) )

They brought it on.

An Iraqi detained at the Abu Ghurayb prison complex was killed when he and seven others sought to escape

[Stelliform]

so -- is mr. berg's death more tragic than those killed in abu ghraib prison?

Do you refer to the Iraqis under Saddam? To my knowledge no prisoners were killed like this by U.S. Soldiers. I think this is much worse than the recent behavior of the seven soldiers at adu ghraid...

[zimv20]

Do you refer to the Iraqis under Saddam?
sorry i wasn't clear, no. i mean since it's been under US command.


To my knowledge no prisoners were killed like this by U.S. Soldiers.

Yesterday the Army revealed that two Iraqi prisoners were killed by U.S. prison guards last year and that 20 other detainee deaths and assaults are still being investigated in Iraq and Afghanistan. No one has been criminally charged in any of these deaths.

from a may 5 wash post story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2372-2004May4.html)

[zimv20]

They brought it on.
i find that absolutely despicable. you know, it's the duty of a captured soldier to try to escape. and the IRC says as much as 90% of those prisoners were wrongfully imprisoned. how can you be so quick to 1) assume those prisoners are guilty of something, and 2) feel that anything that comes to them, death included, is deserved?

[dopefiend]

i find that absolutely despicable. you know, it's the duty of a captured soldier to try to escape. and the IRC says as much as 90% of those prisoners were wrongfully imprisoned. how can you be so quick to 1) assume those prisoners are guilty of something, and 2) feel that anything that comes to them, death included, is deserved?

1. You don't know if the people killed were wrongfully accused, just a % that were held there.

2. They were trying to escape. What do you expect when trying to escape from a prison? "Oh, we will catch them later. Let them go." :rolleyes:

[zimv20]

2. They were trying to escape. What do you expect when trying to escape from a prison? "Oh, we will catch them later. Let them go."
you don't know that. there are rumors that as many as two dozen were killed at the prison. at least one, the guy who was wrapped in ice before being unceremoniously dumped in the desert, died in interrogation, not while escaping.

do you leave any room for error on the part of the US military, or shall i dismiss you as a jingoistic cheerleader who believes that all iraqis are fair game and deserve whatever they get?

[Lyle]

so -- is mr. berg's death more tragic than those killed in abu ghraib prison?According to the stories I've seen so far, Nick Berg was a civilian, an independent communications contractor. But as you've pointed out, it is quite possible that the Iraqis who were killed in the Abu Ghraib prison were wrongfully imprisoned. I don't think the fact that they were killed while trying to escape "lessens" the tragedy of the Iraqi prisoners' deaths, especially if it turns out that they were in fact innocent civilians.

[IJ Reilly]

Most 'Arrested by Mistake'

Coalition intelligence put numbers at 70% to 90% of Iraq prisoners, says a February Red Cross report, which details further abuses.

By Bob Drogin
Times Staff Writer

May 11, 2004

WASHINGTON — Coalition military intelligence officials estimated that 70% to 90% of prisoners detained in Iraq since the war began last year "had been arrested by mistake," according to a confidential Red Cross report given to the Bush administration earlier this year.

Yet the report described a wide range of prisoner mistreatment — including many new details of abusive techniques — that it said U.S. officials had failed to halt, despite repeated complaints from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

ICRC monitors saw some improvements by early this year, but the continued abuses "went beyond exceptional cases and might be considered as a practice tolerated" by coalition forces, the report concluded.

The Swiss-based ICRC, which made 29 visits to coalition-run prisons and camps between late March and November last year, said it repeatedly presented its reports of mistreatment to prison commanders, U.S. military officials in Iraq and members of the Bush administration in Washington.

The ICRC summary report, which was written in February, also said Red Cross officials had complained to senior military officials that families of Iraqi suspects usually were told so little that most arrests resulted "in the de facto 'disappearance' of the arrestee for weeks or even months."

The report also described previously undocumented forms of abuse of prisoners in U.S. custody. In October, for example, an Iraqi prisoner was "hooded, handcuffed in the back, and made to lie face down" on what investigators believe was the engine hood of a vehicle while he was being transported. He was hospitalized for three months for extensive burns to his face, abdomen, foot and hand, the report added.

More than 100 "high-value detainees," apparently including former senior officials in Saddam Hussein's regime and in some cases their family members, were held for five months at the Baghdad airport "in strict solitary confinement" in small cells for 23 hours a day, the report said.

Such conditions "constituted a serious violation" of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions, which set minimum standards for treatment of prisoners of war and civilian internees, the report said. U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, conducted interrogations at the site, but Army units were in charge of custody operations, officials said Monday.

Portions of the ICRC report were published last week. The full 24-page report, which The Times obtained Monday, cites more than 250 allegations of mistreatment at prisons and temporary detention facilities run by U.S. and other occupation forces across Iraq.

The report also referred to, but provided no details of, "allegations of deaths as a result of harsh internment conditions, ill treatment, lack of medical attention, or the combination thereof."

Spokesmen at the Pentagon and at U.S. Central Command headquarters said they had not seen the ICRC report and could not comment on specific charges. ICRC officials in Geneva said they regretted that the document became public. The ICRC usually shares its findings only with governments or other authorities to maintain access to detainees held in conflicts around the world.

Among the abusive techniques detailed in the report was forcing detainees to wear hoods for up to four consecutive days.

"Hooding was sometimes used in conjunction with beatings, thus increasing anxiety as to when blows would come," the report said. "The practice of hooding also allowed the interrogators to remain anonymous and thus to act with impunity."

In some cases, plastic handcuffs allegedly were so tight for so long that they caused long-term nerve damage. Men were punched, kicked and beaten with rifles and pistols; faces were pressed "into the ground with boots." Prisoners were threatened with reprisals against family members, execution or transfer to the U.S. lockup at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The report also provides new details about the now-notorious Abu Ghraib prison, the focus of the prisoner abuse scandal.

During a visit to the "isolation section" of Abu Ghraib prison in October, ICRC delegates witnessed prisoners "completely naked in totally empty concrete cells and in total darkness, allegedly for several consecutive days."

A military intelligence officer, who is not identified in the report, told the ICRC monitors that such treatment was "part of the process" in which prisoners were given clothing, bedding, lights and toiletries in exchange for cooperation.

The ICRC sent its report to the military police brigade commander in charge of Abu Ghraib after the October visit, and the commander responded Dec. 24, a senior Pentagon official said last week. But the Pentagon did not launch a formal investigation into abuses at the prison until a low-ranking U.S. soldier approached military investigators Jan. 13 and gave them a computer disc of photos.

The ICRC report also describes torture and other brutal practices by Iraqi police working in Baghdad under the U.S.-led occupation.

It cites cases in which suspects held by Iraqi police allegedly were beaten with cables, kicked in the testicles, burned with cigarettes and forced to sign confessions.

In June, a group of men arrested by Iraqi police "allegedly had water poured on their legs and had electrical shocks administered to them with stripped tips of electrical wires," the report notes.

One man's mother was brought in, "and the policeman threatened to mistreat her." Another detainee "was threatened with having his wife brought in and raped."

"Many persons deprived of their liberty drew parallels between police practices under the occupation with those of the former regime," the report noted.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-redcross11may11,1,3173652.story

[dopefiend]

you don't know that. there are rumors that as many as two dozen were killed at the prison. at least one, the guy who was wrapped in ice before being unceremoniously dumped in the desert, died in interrogation, not while escaping.

do you leave any room for error on the part of the US military, or shall i dismiss you as a jingoistic cheerleader who believes that all iraqis are fair game and deserve whatever they get?

I don't believe rumors until they have been proven.

No need to resort to name calling :rolleyes: Lets be civil here.

A man had his head cut off. He was a guy trying to earn a living. Stop trying to weigh him against others, just feel sorry for him and the whole ****ed up situation over there.

[zimv20]

:rolleyes: Lets be civil here.
is eye rolling part of that civility?


A man had his head cut off. He was a guy trying to earn a living.
yes, it's a tragedy. now, do you know why he was killed?

[dopefiend]

is eye rolling part of that civility?


yes, it's a tragedy. now, do you know why he was killed?

Who can take that cartoonish smilie seriously? hehe

Do insane murderers have to have a cause?
Being from the terrorist group that its from, probably because Allah told them to :rolleyes:

[blackfox]

So the question is:
Do you think this would have happened if the abuses of prisoners by the US had not taken place?

Also, if most of the people in US custody at the Prison are innocent, then why would the US not trade them for this mans' life?
Is it the US policy of not negotiating with terrorists?
Is it that the Us does not want to admit they arrested the wrong people?
Is it that the prisoners are not as innocent as many of us expect?
Is it that Al Qaeda is using this as a propaganda tool, to gain symapathy w. the Iraqi people?
Is it that the US is using this as propaganda to reinforce the need for commitment in Iraq to
fight against terror?

Seems very Isreali/Palestianian to me...

Regardless, I extend my sympathies to this man and his family as another casualtie of war, and of being in the wrong place at the wrong time...very sad indeed.

[toontra]

A man had his head cut off. He was a guy trying to earn a living. Stop trying to weigh him against others, just feel sorry for him and the whole ****ed up situation over there.

That's a pretty defeatist attitude, don't you think. Rather than rolling the eyes and shrugging the shoulders and saying the whole thing is ****ed up so lets feel sorry about it, I think we owe it to all who have died, Iraqi and US, to try work out why it has gone so spectacularly wrong and repair the damage done so far, learn from the mistakes and hold those responsible on both sides accountable.

[Ugg]

Who can take that cartoonish smilie seriously? hehe

Do insane murderers have to have a cause?
Being from the terrorist group that its from, probably because Allah told them to :rolleyes:

You've got a good point and how much do you wanna bet that a lot of those GIs did what they did in the name of the Christian god. It works both ways you know, there are a lot of religious whackos on both sides of the fence.

That woman in TX who killed her sons comes to mind. Why is it that she is deserving of compassion and not the Iraqis whose nation has been destroyed in the name of freedom?

[pivo6]

so -- is mr. berg's death more tragic than those killed in abu ghraib prison?

IMHO. All fatalities in this conflict are tragic. No death is worse than the other.

[toontra]

Seems very Isreali/Palestianian to me...


I was thinking the exact same thing watching the news this evening. Exactly the same brand of brinkmanship and retaliatory rhetoric on both sides. Oh yes, and the overwhelming military might on one side.

[poopyhead]

2. They were trying to escape. What do you expect when trying to escape from a prison? "Oh, we will catch them later. Let them go." :rolleyes:

under the Geneva Convention prisoners are expected to attempt to escape

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
Article 92

A prisoner of war who attempts to escape and is recaptured before having made good his escape in the sense of Article 91 shall be liable only to a disciplinary punishment in respect of this act, even if it is a repeated offence.

A prisoner of war who is recaptured shall be handed over without delay to the competent military authority.

Article 88, fourth paragraph, notwithstanding, prisoners of war punished as a result of an unsuccessful escape may be subjected to special surveillance. Such surveillance must not affect the state of their health, must be undergone in a prisoner of war camp, and must not entail the suppression of any of the safeguards granted them by the present Convention.

Article 93

Escape or attempt to escape, even if it is a repeated offence, shall not be deemed an aggravating circumstance if the prisoner of war is subjected to trial by judicial proceedings in respect of an offence committed during his escape or attempt to escape.

In conformity with the principle stated in Article 83, offences committed by prisoners of war with the sole intention of facilitating their escape and which do not entail any violence against life or limb, such as offences against public property, theft without intention of self-enrichment, the drawing up or use of false papers, the wearing of civilian clothing, shall occasion disciplinary punishment only.

Prisoners of war who aid or abet an escape or an attempt to escape shall be liable on this count to disciplinary punishment only.

[zimv20]

Do insane murderers have to have a cause?
Being from the terrorist group that its from, probably because Allah told them to :rolleyes:
you judge w/o examining the 'why'. without knowing why, all we can do is commit the same mistakes over and over again. only by knowing the why can we ever hope to peacefully co-exist w/ others.

it is this rampant incuriosity in the US which has me so concerned. is incuriosity learned, i wonder, or are the incurious born that way?

[blackfox]

you judge w/o examining the 'why'. without knowing why, all we can do is commit the same mistakes over and over again. only by knowing the why can we ever hope to peacefully co-exist w/ others.
Well said, zim...although I am not hopeful...that's sooo much effort...
it is this rampant incuriosity in the US which has me so concerned. is incuriosity learned, i wonder, or are the incurious born that way?
I know you were being rhetorical, but if you've ever seen/had a baby or young child, you know the answer to that question...which seems ironic, since we seem fully capable of acting like children in so many less healthy ways...

[mactastic]

is incuriosity learned, i wonder, or are the incurious born that way?

Ah who cares, right? :p

[skunk]

it is this rampant incuriosity in the US which has me so concerned. is incuriosity learned, i wonder, or are the incurious born that way?
"Don't want to know".
Isn't this the mantra of the Bush administration? Isn't this the seat of all the trouble?

[Lyle]

So the question is:
Do you think this would have happened if the abuses of prisoners by the US had not taken place?Just for argument's sake, a slightly different question: Do you think this would have happened if the pictures of the prisoner abuse had not been broadcast around the world?

Also, if most of the people in US custody at the Prison are innocent, then why would the US not trade them for this mans' life?
Is it the US policy of not negotiating with terrorists?I would say yes.

Is it that the Us does not want to admit they arrested the wrong people?
Is it that the prisoners are not as innocent as many of us expect?The statement from the terrorists (in the video) says that they "... offered the U.S. administration to exchange this hostage for some of the detainees in Abu Ghraib and they refused." From the way it's worded, it's not clear to me if their alleged offer was exchange Berg for any prisoner(s) we chose, or if they wanted some specific prisoners released.

Is it that Al Qaeda is using this as a propaganda tool, to gain symapathy w. the Iraqi people?
Is it that the US is using this as propaganda to reinforce the need for commitment in Iraq to
fight against terror?

Seems very Isreali/Palestianian to me...

Regardless, I extend my sympathies to this man and his family as another casualtie of war, and of being in the wrong place at the wrong time...very sad indeed.One more question: The President and his Secretary of Defense have apologized for the abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison. When should we expect to see an apology from al Qaeda's leaders for this execution? For that matter, when should we expect any Muslim leader in the world to apologize for this action which the terrorists claim to have taken on behalf of all Muslims?

[toontra]

The President and his Secretary of Defense have apologized for the abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison. When should we expect to see an apology from al Qaeda's leaders for this execution? For that matter, when should we expect any Muslim leader in the world to apologize for this action which the terrorists claim to have taken on behalf of all Muslims?

Look, let's get this straight. Al Queda don't represent all muslims. OK?

They are a small minority terrorist organization who employ repugnant and atrocious tactics to try and further their ludicrous ideals. Thy are no more representative of the ordinary muslim than the KKK is of the average American.

PS They weren't present (in any numbers at least) in Iraq until the invasion.

PPS Iraq doesn't have WMD!

[zimv20]

Just for argument's sake, a slightly different question: Do you think this would have happened if the pictures of the prisoner abuse had not been broadcast around the world?
blaming the messenger?


One more question: The President and his Secretary of Defense have apologized for the abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison. When should we expect to see an apology from al Qaeda's leaders for this execution?
terrorism is the result of asymmetrical warfare. i wouldn't expect high road tactics from terrorists, but i do expect that of the superpower. it's when the superpower stoops to the terrorists' level that we lose that moral highground. i wonder if we'll ever reclaim it.

[blackfox]

Just for argument's sake, a slightly different question: Do you think this would have happened if the pictures of the prisoner abuse had not been broadcast around the world?
I thought of phrasing it this way...still, do you?
I would say yes.
Fair enough...
The statement from the terrorists (in the video) says that they "... offered the U.S. administration to exchange this hostage for some of the detainees in Abu Ghraib and they refused." From the way it's worded, it's not clear to me if their alleged offer was exchange Berg for any prisoner(s) we chose, or if they wanted some specific prisoners released..
That is true, still, I wonder about motivations...
One more question: The President and his Secretary of Defense have apologized for the abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison. When should we expect to see an apology from al Qaeda's leaders for this execution? For that matter, when should we expect any Muslim leader in the world to apologize for this action which the terrorists claim to have taken on behalf of all Muslims?
I see where you are going with this...but what does that prove? No-one is saying that Al-Qaeda are good people, or even representative of most Muslims...so it would be somewhat inappropriate for a Moslem leader to apologize for something they had no hand in...also, the US should hold itself to higher standards, if it is what is says it is...you are comparing apples and oranges.
*edit* zim does a better job of explaining my point above...thanks zim

[skunk]

One more question: The President and his Secretary of Defense have apologized for the abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison. When should we expect to see an apology from al Qaeda's leaders for this execution? For that matter, when should we expect any Muslim leader in the world to apologize for this action which the terrorists claim to have taken on behalf of all Muslims?
When should we expect the Pope to apologize for the actions of Bush, Pinochet, Hitler, Marcos, Mussolini, Franco or any other Christian nutcase?

[mactastic]

It's funny how the people who are the most apologistic of American torture and murder are also the most outraged by this brutality.

Where are those who said the Iraqis at Abu Ghraib 'got what they deserved' because of 'what they did to us'? Did Berg 'get what he deserved'? Or is that sentiment only reserved for non-Americans?

[skunk]

Where are those who said the Iraqis at Abu Ghraib 'got what they deserved' because of 'what they did to us'?
Since apparently 70-90% of them were completely innocent, probably not :mad:
What I want to know, is when Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Bremer, Miller, and all those other creeps are going to get what they deserve....

[wowser]

I thought of phrasing it this way...still, do you?

Fair enough...

That is true, still, I wonder about motivations...

I see where you are going with this...but what does that prove? No-one is saying that Al-Qaeda are good people, or even representative of most Muslims...so it would be somewhat inappropriate for a Moslem leader to apologize for something they had no hand in...also, the US should hold itself to higher standards, if it is what is says it is...you are comparing apples and oranges.
*edit* zim does a better job of explaining my point above...thanks zim

Yes - Bush had to (half) apologize for the American soldiers because they were out there as representitives of the United States. Only the actual torturers can be held accountable for the excecution of the US soldier. Though the beheading was perhaps slightly more shocking, the point is that the American soldiers came over to 'liberate' Iraq from the very kind of torture and barbarity that the soldiers themselves practiced - that was what was worrying about the US torture. Appalling as though this excecution was, I think it was completely expected.

[poopyhead]

The BBC has an interesting take on the slaughter including the father of the slain man stating that the US is at least in part culpable
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3705409.stm
Video 'shows US man beheaded'

The victim said he was an American from Philadelphia

An Islamic militant website has shown a video apparently showing the beheading of an American in Iraq.

The video showed five men in headscarves and ski masks cutting off the man's head with a knife.

Moments earlier the victim, bound and dressed in an orange jumpsuit, said he was an American from Philadelphia.

The group, thought to be linked to al-Qaeda, said it was carrying out the killing in retaliation for the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers.

The poor-quality tape - shown on the Muntada al-Ansar site - began with the victim sitting on the floor with five masked men behind him.

It was titled "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi shown slaughtering an American".

The CIA is said to be checking to see whether Zarqawi - a senior al-Qaeda operative accused of masterminding multiple bomb attacks against US forces in Iraq - was actually in the video.

Washington vowed to find the killers.

"It shows the true nature of the enemies of freedom," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

"They have no regard for the lives of innocent men, women and children. We will pursue those who are responsible and bring them to justice."

However, the victim's father said the US authorities were indirectly to blame for his death for failing to get him safely out of the country.

'Devilish scorn'

The victim identified himself as Nick Berg, a US civilian contractor. His body was found near a highway overpass in Baghdad on Saturday.

Details of Nick's death added to the pain of his grieving family

"My father's name is Michael, my mother's name is Suzanne," the man said on the video. "I have a brother and sister, David and Sarah. I live in... Philadelphia."

One of the masked men read out a statement, saying they had offered to exchange the man for inmates of Abu Ghraib prison but the coalition authorities refused.

"How can a free Muslim sleep well as he sees Islam slaughtered and its dignity bleeding, and the pictures of shame and the news of the devilish scorn of the people of Islam - men and women - in the prison of Abu Ghraib?" he said.

"You will not receive anything from us but coffins after coffins... slaughtered in this way."

The statement also threatened US President George W Bush, saying he would regret the day he stepped into Iraq.

It described Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf as a "traitor agent".

Disappearance

After reading the statement, they pulled the man to the side and put a knife to his neck.

The man screamed as he was killed.

His killers shouted "Allah is great" before holding what appeared to be a head up to the camera.

The 26-year-old Mr Berg, who owned a communications equipment company, was involved in rebuilding antennas in Iraq before he disappeared on 9 April.

But he went missing prior to that, and was later found to have been arrested at an Iraqi checkpoint in Mosul and held in an Iraqi jail with Iraqi prisoners for 13 days, his father told American TV on Tuesday morning, before the video was released.

Michael Berg said the US authorities were indirectly responsible for his death, by failing to secure his release and thereby causing him to miss his flight home on 30 March.

"He would have missed the escalation if they had let him go," he said.

The Berg family declined further comment after receiving news of the video.

[wowser]

Bush and Blair are leading us, as citizens and soldiers, into situations in which we suffer for our leader's actions. The 'handover' is just going to be a fraud - a public relations exercise to take the war off the headlines, yet nothing will change.

[skunk]

The BBC has an interesting take on the slaughter including the father of the slain man stating that the US is at least in part culpable
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3705409.stm
Frankly, he seems a bit of a fool to have gone to Iraq TWICE on spec, looking for a job. Aren't there enough jobs in the US?

[poopyhead]

Frankly, he seems a bit of a fool to have gone to Iraq TWICE on spec, looking for a job. Aren't there enough jobs in the US?

No, that is yet another problem with the bush administration. At least one other captive was a civilian contractor who had been a farmer, but took a job as a truck driver in Iraq in order to support his family.

[skunk]

No, that is yet another problem with the bush administration. At least one other captive was a civilian contractor who had been a farmer, but took a job as a truck driver in Iraq in order to support his family.
Yeah, but Hamill at least had a job sorted out before he went there. This guy went out to Iraq "to look for work". :eek:

[wowser]

All very well, but this is hardly the point

[Lyle]

Look, let's get this straight. Al Queda don't represent all muslims. OK?

They are a small minority terrorist organization who employ repugnant and atrocious tactics to try and further their ludicrous ideals. Thy are no more representative of the ordinary muslim than the KKK is of the average American.

I completely agree with you, one hundred percent. I don't believe that al Qaeda represents all Muslims either. So in light of their [al Qaeda's] claims that they beheaded this man on behalf of all Muslims, would you expect Muslim leaders around the world to denounce this act?

I'm not holding my breath.

[Lyle]

blaming the messenger?I don't know. I mean, I'm reading that Nick Berg went missing about a month ago but it would seem that Berg's execution was retaliation for the prison abuses (specifically, the pictures) that have come to light over the last week or so. The question is, would he still be alive if those pictures had not been published?

Before someone leaps in to misrepresent what I just said, I still don't justify what was done to the Abu Ghraib prisoners. It's just something to consider.

[poopyhead]

I completely agree with you, one hundred percent. I don't believe that al Qaeda represents all Muslims either. So in light of their [al Qaeda's] claims that they beheaded this man on behalf of all Muslims, would you expect Muslim leaders around the world to denounce this act?

I'm not holding my breath.

I think these 5 men who beheaded the contractor as well as Al Quaida in general probably fit this description

[2.6] Surely those who disbelieve, it being alike to them whether you warn them, or do not warn them, will not believe.
[2.7] Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing and there is a covering over their eyes, and there is a great punishment for them.
[2.8] And there are some people who say: We believe in Allah and the last day; and they are not at all believers.
[2.9] They desire to deceive Allah and those who believe, and they deceive only themselves and they do not perceive.
[2.10] There is a disease in their hearts, so Allah added to their disease and they shall have a painful chastisement because they lied.
[2.11] And when it is said to them, Do not make mischief in the land, they say: We are but peace-makers.
[2.12] Now surely they themselves are the mischief makers, but they do not perceive.
[2.13] And when it is said to them: Believe as the people believe they say: Shall we believe as the fools believe? Now surely they themselves are the fools, but they do not know.
[2.14] And when they meet those who believe, they say: We believe; and when they are alone with their Shaitans, they say: Surely we are with you, we were only mocking.
[2.15] Allah shall pay them back their mockery, and He leaves them alone in their inordinacy, blindly wandering on.
[2.16] These are they who buy error for the right direction, so their bargain shall bring no gain, nor are they the followers of the right direction.
[2.17] Their parable is like the parable of one who kindled a fire but when it had illumined all around him, Allah took away their light, and left them in utter darkness-- they do not see.

[blackfox]

I completely agree with you, one hundred percent. I don't believe that al Qaeda represents all Muslims either. So in light of their [al Qaeda's] claims that they beheaded this man on behalf of all Muslims, would you expect Muslim leaders around the world to denounce this act?

I'm not holding my breath.
Would you in their shoes (the muslim leaders')? On one hand you risk being branded an infidel (or some such term) and may become a target for terrorism yourself...never politically prudent, on the other hand, you align yourself with or imply that you are sympathetic to the US, which is suicidal at this point (especially in that region) for many reasons, including US support is often seen as synonomous with tacit support of Isreal. It is not like all Muslims are somehow "backwards" and have no grasp of geopolitics...you do what you can to survive (politically or otherwise)...it may be cowardly, but it is pragmatic...

[Lyle]

I thought of phrasing it this way...still, do you?

I'm not sure which question you're referring to at this point. Yes, I think this (i.e. executions of U.S. civilians) would have happened eventually even if the prison abuses had never taken place.

I see where you are going with this...but what does that prove? No-one is saying that Al-Qaeda are good people, or even representative of most Muslims...so it would be somewhat inappropriate for a Moslem leader to apologize for something they had no hand in...also, the US should hold itself to higher standards, if it is what is says it is...you are comparing apples and oranges.I think I agree with you (but don't be afraid ;) ). Clearly, there's been a lot of (appropriate) outrage over the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse photos, because, as you put it, the U.S. should hold itself to higher standards. I am curious to see what the response to this (Nick Berg's execution) will be, around the world, over the next few days.

[blackfox]

I think I agree with you (but don't be afraid ;) ). Clearly, there's been a lot of (appropriate) outrage over the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse photos, because, as you put it, the U.S. should hold itself to higher standards. I am curious to see what the response to this (Nick Berg's execution) will be, around the world, over the next few days.
hehe...I enjoy your contributions to these forums, Lyle...even though we may disagree...it would be no fun to hang out with people who all thought the same, now would it? I did lose my cool with Sly/Voltron the other day...but that had been building...your positions are fair, and you are willing to amend them upon new evidence...as I try to do...as for the worlds' response, I think that officially many will condemn it (as they should) but at least a few will probably secretly think he (and by extension, the US) - had it coming for being stupid. So sad...

[Sayhey]

I completely agree with you, one hundred percent. I don't believe that al Qaeda represents all Muslims either. So in light of their [al Qaeda's] claims that they beheaded this man on behalf of all Muslims, would you expect Muslim leaders around the world to denounce this act?

I'm not holding my breath.

I'd be willing to bet that many do denounce this act and that the US press will not cover it.

[mactastic]

I think the world's response will reflect what we saw here over the Abu Ghraib pictures. The political leaders will all condemn the acts, some will still support the broader goals of their side but not necessarily the tactics. In the street you'll probably hear everything from 'they had it coming' to expressions of frustration with war in all it's forms. And most likely we will hear the loudest shouters, usually the radicals on either side, above all else.

[IJ Reilly]

The question is, would he still be alive if those pictures had not been published?

Ceci n'est pas une pipe.

This is about the only French I know. It's the title of a painting of a pipe by Rene Magritte, entitled "This is not a pipe." It isn't a pipe -- it's a picture of a pipe.

Berg might still be alive if the activities pictured in the photos hadn't occurred. Please, let's not pretend that reality changes depending on whether it's been photographed or not (even if the surrealists might be pleased).

[zimv20]

let's not pretend that reality changes depending on whether it's been photographed or not (even if the surrealists might be pleased).
or heisenberg

more importantly, what is the name of the painting called? :-)

[wowser]

or heisenberg

more importantly, what is the name of the painting called? :-)

he Treason of Images :)

[pseudobrit]

I'd be willing to bet that many do denounce this act and that the US press will not cover it.

I agree that such events would not be "newsworthy" in most media outlets.

A few points:

This is not any worse than any of the deaths in Abu Ghraib under US watch; in fact, it's much the same thing, perhaps even more humane (we don't know the full details on how all the detainees were killed). Killing a prisoner is killing a prisoner.

How this plays in the Arab world is more important than anything else. Al Qaeda has seized the Abu Ghraib atrocities and can use them as political capital in their ambitions.

Whereas before most in the Arab world would be appaled by such a murder as Mr. Berg's, I'd wager there are quite a number who see such an act, when viewed as some kind of retaliation, as justified or at least mitigated.

And I know this swings the other way too. We are in an illegal war, but this beheading has caused at least one member here to urge us all to support the war in Iraq.

I imagine many Americans see such acts as the killings and desecration of the bodies of the contracted security guards in Falluja and now this beheading as justification of our treatment of the prisoners in Abu Ghraib.

It's a ****ing disgusting, neverending road of hate, retribution, and murder. This is war without end. Welcome to American Palestine, formerly known as Iraq.

[zimv20]

it's almost as if -- the more iraqis we kill, the more iraqis resist

[Neserk]

it's almost as if -- the more iraqis we kill, the more iraqis resist

violence begets violence and all that jazz...

[pseudobrit]

FWIW, I just saw the video.

I can't help but think that none of these people would have been where they were...

[jefhatfield]

it's almost as if -- the more iraqis we kill, the more iraqis resist

under the philosophy of some moderate soldiers, going into iraq was wrong, but if we did go, then do it all the way

rummy went in, underarmed and undermanned, and without a plan

the moral mission he wanted is now made clear in a lot of people's minds now as to who is the bad guy

as much as i have been against the invasion of iraq, i think the criminals who perpetrated the act of murder on nick berg have just crossed a line which may result in an escalation of war, worse treatment of iraqi prisoners, and a greater willingness to use wmd's against so called "enemies" and "terrorists"

it's a bad place to be in and most military strategists know this type of ambiguity happens in every war...terrrorists do not need to be brought to justice, they need to be killed and many seem to agree with that after 9-11

but instead of terrorists being killed, i think the coalition forces will kill a lot of innocent iraqis and this war, once thought of as miles from a vietnam type struggle, is starting to resemble vietnam with dead civilians and atrocities on both sides

if the usa could reason with the terrorists in iraq, they would, but being that most want to die in their defense of some cause, the usa, in norman schwartzkopf's words, will have to accomodate them

what started as a regional, decades long conflict between jews and palestinians has become a major conflict in the middle east involving the usa, perhaps, as some would say, a sort of armageddon (battle between good and evil) and the question as to who is "good" is very clouded at best

this event today has been the turning point from a war poorly run into the first of many events which will keep us in iraq, in one way or another, for many years

[jefhatfield]

I agree that such events would not be "newsworthy" in most media outlets.



It's a ****ing disgusting, neverending road of hate, retribution, and murder. This is war without end. Welcome to American Palestine, formerly known as Iraq.

i hate to say it, but you are right...this is our palestine, or our "vietnam" in the desert...lebanon, mostly under wraps in the 80s, was also very dirty...the media has brought this particular conflict we call the second iraq war into our livingrooms

i tend to support the war (barely), too after the actions of al qaeda in iraq yesterday

it doesn't make me a conservative or republican, but we need to stamp out terrorism

but also we need to act in a way as not to piss someone off so much they want to be a terrorist against the usa where they would have otherwise been a peaceful citizen going about their business

it's a tightrope, but one that any superpower in history had to walk

[blackfox]

i hate to say it, but you are right...this is our palestine, or our "vietnam" in the desert...lebanon, mostly under wraps in the 80s, was also very dirty...the media has brought this conflict into our livingrooms

i tend to support the war (barely), too...but now only after this incident...it doesn't make me a conservative or republican, but we need to stamp out terrorism

but also we need to act in a way as not to piss someone off so much they want to be a terrorist

it's a tightrope, but one that any superpower in history had to walk
Look, this is the fallacy that people always fall into...it has been happening to the Isrealis for years...you start a war...your presence is seen as an intrusion and your "combatants" want the right to self-determination...a radical element takes advantage of the situation, rallies support with demogoguery and fights back with the only means available against a technologically superior force...terrorism...you are outraged and use increasingly brutal and arbitrary force against ALL "combatants" as they have supposedly "supported" terrorism...this leaves the "combatants" in a catch-22...either they support a violent, radical organization which they probably don't agree with in at least means, if not ends, and which is exploiting their situation...or they lay down for the greater power and suffer retribution as scapegoats for a conflict of which their biggest crime is being on land that someone else wants...this retribution is not called terrorism, as it is done by a more "sophisticated" country for "defense"...and so on...

The point is:
The war in Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism...there is terrorism...AND there is a war in Iraq...Al Qaeda is bad...but the Iraqis are not...as a supposedly 'enlightened' populace, we should be able to make that distinction...

[skunk]

The point is:
The war in Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism...there is terrorism...AND there is a war in Iraq...Al Qaeda is bad...but the Iraqis are not...as a supposedly 'enlightened' populace, we should be able to make that distinction...
Sadly, the enlightenment seems to be only skin-deep.
"If you cut me, do I not nuke?"

[Stelliform]

This is not any worse than any of the deaths in Abu Ghraib under US watch; in fact, it's much the same thing, perhaps even more humane (we don't know the full details on how all the detainees were killed). Killing a prisoner is killing a prisoner

More humane? Do you distrust your country that much? I personally side with the Americans on this one.


How this plays in the Arab world is more important than anything else. Al Qaeda has seized the Abu Ghraib atrocities and can use them as political capital in their ambitions.

Much like Kerry. (Who if you remember claims to have commited such abuse himself when he was a soldier.)


Whereas before most in the Arab world would be appaled by such a murder as Mr. Berg's, I'd wager there are quite a number who see such an act, when viewed as some kind of retaliation, as justified or at least mitigated.

And I know this swings the other way too. We are in an illegal war, but this beheading has caused at least one member here to urge us all to support the war in Iraq.

I think this is the greatest fear of the Bush opposition. That this act will undermine the use of the Abu Ghraib scandal against Bush.


It's a ****ing disgusting, neverending road of hate, retribution, and murder. This is war without end. Welcome to American Palestine, formerly known as Iraq.

No, I think this is business as usual for the Middle East.

[mactastic]

More humane? Do you distrust your country that much? I personally side with the Americans on this one.

How do you know that? I hear the video of Berg's murder lasts less than 15 minutes. How long do you think the people who died in Abu Ghraib under American watch suffered? Remember, they died 'during or after interrogation' which is known to have lasted up to 24 hours.

We are a visual people, I bet if we saw the video of one of those interrogations that wound up with the subject dead we'd be at least as horrified.

The only reason this prison scandal exists is because of those pictures.

[Voltron]

Have any of the Arab stations broadcasted this beheading? They unlike our own press don't seem to have qualms about broadcasting bloody events but do they have qualms about fair and balance reporting?

I'm not counting that one Arab station we alledge to be in semi control of. Although I have no idea whether they showed any pictures either. I do know that Neal Boortz says none of them have. http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html (keep in mind this addy will go to a different story tomorrow and you'll have to refer to his archives to read it then.)

[mactastic]

but do they have qualms about fair and balance reporting?

Do our media have qualms about 'fair and balanced'?

[Voltron]

Do our media have qualms about 'fair and balanced'?
Thats another argument thats already going on in a different thread. Besides I don't think our media would display all of it simply because we have rules that the Arab media doesn't and protect the sensibilities of the viewers. So their lack of playing it doesn't necessarily mean a prejudice on their part. Not the same problem Arab media has.

[mactastic]

Thats another argument thats already going on in a different thread.

In your opinion (not Limbaugh's or Hannity's or Ingrahm's) does our media have qualms about fair and balanced is as sweeping a way as you just dissed all Arab media?

[Voltron]

In your opinion (not Limbaugh's or Hannity's or Ingrahm's) does our media have qualms about fair and balanced is as sweeping a way as you just dissed all Arab media?
I don't consider them to be news shows. I consider them to be opinion shows, not the same thing. If I watch Limbaugh or Hannity I expect to see the right point of view. I don't know Ingrahm. If I watch ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC news shows I expect more of a fair and balanced reporting then those left leaning channels tend to give. Same goes with FOX News. I expect them to report the news give me the facts. [edit] I do not mean to imply Fox News is left leaning or right leaning just that I expect fair and balance news from that show. What little I've seen of it I think they do a good job. Not my primary news outlet. [end edit]

Air America aint fair and balanced. But thats ok its not suppose to be, just like Limbaugh or Hannity. Now Hannity and Colmes is balanced but not always fair Colmes seems to lose an awful lot of arguments. :D

Oh and I don't watch the Arab news shows so I just stated what Neal Boortz said about them and asked if it were true. ie are they showing that video footage? There is one arab news station, whose name escapes me at the moment but is very well known, who I would most deffinitely say they only report one side of the story -- whatever makes the US look bad and they seem to be the main outlet for the terrorists as if they had some link with them.

[Rustus Maximus]

In your opinion (not Limbaugh's or Hannity's or Ingrahm's) does our media have qualms about fair and balanced is as sweeping a way as you just dissed all Arab media?

yes...given their outrage over the Iraqi prisoner mistreatment versus say their lack of outrage over the four dead, dismembered, hacked and burned contractors hanging from the bridge in Fallujak...given their lack of outrage over the beheading of an American citizen by barbarians and instead blaming America for the incident...

[toontra]

No, I think this is business as usual for the Middle East.

If this is your opinion, do you think it was worth invading Iraq to bring humanitarian betterment and democracy to a people who are capable of such acts?

[mactastic]

I don't consider them to be news shows. I consider them to be opinion shows, not the same thing.


Oh and I don't watch the Arab news shows so I just stated what Neal Boortz said about them and asked if it were true.

So now you're admitting that your sources are right-wing, but you continue to post it as if it were mainstream news?

[Voltron]

So now you're admitting that your sources are right-wing, but you continue to post it as if it were mainstream news?
No I post on their opinion and sometimes on my opinion which is biased but truthful. And there are those who post left-wing stuff as if it were mainstream news. In fact there are those who think left-wing is mainstream.

Just because its biased doesn't make it wrong or a lie. If you want I'll start pointing out the left-wing biased addy's and why they are left wing that others post. I havn't done so very often because I see it as pointless to the discussion at hand.

[radhak]

Maybe there are at least three muslims who condemn the killings -
Reaction to beheading (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/12/iraq.berg.reax/)
Does not suprise me, for i firmly believe that the average guy on the street is not blood thirsty. And that needs no qualification of nationality, religion or political belief.

But i find it very weird that there are calls for Al Qaeda to apologize for their killings because Bush did so. Does that elevate terrorist thugs to the level of the US President, or pull the President down to the former's level? Al Qaeda is a terrorist outfit, and they don't want sanity or reason to prevail anywhere! They want more hatred on both sides, nothing else!! Definitely not a call I'd expect from supporters of Bush.

[wowser]

All news has to have some bias (and it is lying if it says it does not - *cough Fox*) and there is nothing really wrong with this bias, yet we have to be aware that it exists. However, to say that the American media has a 'lestist bias' is simply not true - i would say pretty much the opposite with a few exceptions. No mainstream news channel in the US is decidely 'left wing'

[IJ Reilly]

However, to say that the American media has a 'lestist bias' is simply not true - i would say pretty much the opposite with a few exceptions. No mainstream news channel in the US is decidely 'left wing'

So much is obvious, to those who want to know, but a large segment of American society has spent the last 20 years or so convincing themselves that only the news sources that tell them what they want to hear can be trusted. They are being voluntarily propagandized, or to use an even stronger word, brainwashed.

[toontra]

Has anyone sensed a certain irony in this situation. The US invaded Iraq on humanitarian grounds and here we are a few months later debating on who is guilty of committing the worst atrocities - the US or Al Qaeda.

The fact that we're even having this conversation proves how spectacularly catastrophic the whole campaign has been. And who's stuck in the middle of these two combatants in the "war on terrorism"? The Iraqis.

[IJ Reilly]

Has anyone sensed a certain irony in this situation. The US invaded Iraq on humanitarian grounds and here we are a few months later debating on who is guilty of committing the worst atrocities - the US or Al Qaeda.

The fact that we're even having this conversation proves how spectacularly catastrophic the whole campaign has been. And who's stuck in the middle of these two combatants in the "war on terrorism"? The Iraqis.

Agreed. As low as the dialog on this issue has sunk, we can count on politics sinking it to even greater depths:

Some Republicans Vent 'Outrage at the Outrage'

Lawmakers and others say the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison pales in comparison to actions by Saddam Hussein and anti-U.S. militants.

WASHINGTON — Amid the furor and hand-wringing over the abuse of Iraqi detainees by U.S. soldiers, some Republican lawmakers and commentators are giving voice to what they call "outrage at the outrage," a sense that the country has overreacted to the scandal.

Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) sounded the theme on Capitol Hill early Tuesday during questioning of the general who investigated abuses at the Abu Ghraib military prison in Iraq. "I'm probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment" of the prisoners, Inhofe said.

Another lawmaker struck a similar theme following the news that an American had been beheaded on video by an Al Qaeda-aligned group in revenge for the prison abuse.

"My constituents feel the way I do: This was a terrible thing our soldiers have done, but let's not overblow it," said Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio). "They felt this way before the beheading. That will just solidify it."

Although the dominant reaction to the events at Abu Ghraib remains indignation, one prominent Republican working with President Bush's reelection campaign said he detected the beginnings of a counter-reaction.

"I do think there's a potential for a sort of backlash," said the Republican, who requested anonymity. "People's initial reaction is horror, but this is not a self-flagellating country…. Listen to talk radio. I think you're seeing a little bit of that on the right."

People who warn against overreaction to the prison abuse cite three major reasons for their views. First, some say that the Abu Ghraib prisoners were dangerous criminals who, in Inhofe's words, "were not there for traffic violations."

Second, some believe that although the actions of U.S. soldiers were inexcusable, they do not compare to the thousands of cases of murder and torture perpetrated by ousted President Saddam Hussein's regime or the brutality of the beheading video.

[...]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-politics12may12,1,2448159.story

IOW, the US may have behaved badly, but not as badly as Saddam or Al Qaeda. Once again, the right is trying to instruct us on how to think.

[jefhatfield]

Has anyone sensed a certain irony in this situation. The US invaded Iraq on humanitarian grounds and here we are a few months later debating on who is guilty of committing the worst atrocities - the US or Al Qaeda.

The fact that we're even having this conversation proves how spectacularly catastrophic the whole campaign has been. And who's stuck in the middle of these two combatants in the "war on terrorism"? The Iraqis.

going into iraq was wrong

going after al qaeda in afganistan was the right thing to do and we would have caught bin laden if we focused on that and not saddam...al gore was correct in saying bush went into iraq because he couldn't find bin laden in afganistan

bush should have continued his actions in afganistan and finished the job he set out to do, not make a move in iraq

...so now al qaeda is in iraq, prolly out to help the radical factions of that country, and the usa is now fighting a "war on terrorism" in iraq too

that changes things and now we have to stamp out terrorism in that country...but one has to ask, if we stayed out of iraq, al qaeda wouldn't have sent agents there in the first place, right?

though i see the iraq situation as the fault of the usa first, i think we are stuck in a place where we have to restore iraq after we bombed them, and now hang out there to kill the terrorists

instead of spending money on nukes, submarines, and carrier groups, we need to fight smaller covert wars with special ops taking out specific terrorists and leaders and though this is killing, the general carrier group/army division form of total war is worse...many more civilians die in the all out approach to war...like we did by attacking and occupying iraq

nobody likes to fight a small, dirty war special ops style, but it beats the larger, less discriminate option of shock and awe

what is worse? the cia/fbi/nsa killing or capturing saddam *or like minded leader, or the usa dropping tons of bombs and missiles on baghdad where we know we will kill innocent civilians?

[toontra]

IOW, the US may have behaved badly, but not as badly as Saddam or Al Qaeda. Once again, the right is trying to instruct us on how to think.

It is a laughably cynical argument - "Hey, let's forget about the atrocities we're responsible for - let's concentrate on ones outside our control" - pathetic!

[IJ Reilly]

It is a laughably cynical argument - "Hey, let's forget about the atrocities we're responsible for - let's concentrate on ones outside our control" - pathetic!

I suppose one could find elements of black comedy in this, but for one I am beyond laughing at any of it. Politicians like Inhofe are desperately attempting to bury US transgressions in Iraq in a wave of indignation over the murder of Berg. It's all being done for purely political reasons. It is sick, and as you say, cynical.

[krimson]

i have to admit that my morbid curiosity took over and I watched the last 30 seconds or so (i've already read the transcripts).. and it makes me sad that there are people still in the world that would react in this manner.

[blackfox]

Sadly, the enlightenment seems to be only skin-deep.
"If you cut me, do I not nuke?"
I understand this Skunk, but I, as many people in the US, have to make a choice. There was a time when I was proud to be an American (or close), but in 3 short years GW actions have made me so cynical it is both surreal and depressing. So I choose the path of unsubstantiated Optimism, because I hope that there is some sanity, and therefore some hope in these times. Even as evidence mounts of US ineptitude/malfeasance, I know that the average American is not pschopathic, and that we will finally wake up to this fact. It may be too late, but blind hope does not care about such things...and it is what I am reduced to. It also seems to be what the administration is reduced to in terms of policy...why must I live in a time of such unpleasant ironies?

[skunk]

I understand this Skunk, but I, as many people in the US, have to make a choice. There was a time when I was proud to be an American (or close), but in 3 short years GW actions have made me so cynical it is both surreal and depressing. So I choose the path of unsubstantiated Optimism, because I hope that there is some sanity, and therefore some hope in these times. Even as evidence mounts of US ineptitude/malfeasance, I know that the average American is not pschopathic, and that we will finally wake up to this fact. It may be too late, but blind hope does not care about such things...and it is what I am reduced to. It also seems to be what the administration is reduced to in terms of policy...why must I live in a time of such unpleasant ironies?
I realize that the average American is not psychopathic. Unfortunately, though, the image projectors have been whirring away in the background for so long that everyone seems to have forgotten they are in a movie. It's as if, now the backdrop has been ripped, they are all looking around in disbelief, wondering where they are. It's a different country, which a lot of Americans obviously do not recognize. Maybe the long-term effect will be good, in that fewer people will be so ready to be fooled by the advertising next time around. There's got to be a silver lining somewhere.

[zimv20]

why must I live in a time of such unpleasant ironies?
blame Confucius

[skunk]

blame Confucius
"Interesting times" indeed...

[blackfox]

I realize that the average American is not psychopathic. Unfortunately, though, the image projectors have been whirring away in the background for so long that everyone seems to have forgotten they are in a movie. It's as if, now the backdrop has been ripped, they are all looking around in disbelief, wondering where they are. It's a different country, which a lot of Americans obviously do not recognize. Maybe the long-term effect will be good, in that fewer people will be so ready to be fooled by the advertising next time around. There's got to be a silver lining somewhere.
Yes, we are reduced to this...IMHO this is the real cost of the War and the Bush administration; not the casualties, or defecits, or dismantling of social safety nets - but the fact that people around the world have become so cynical and dumbfounded and seemingly helpless to the horrible events around us. A few years ago, I would have been SHOCKED to hear of this news story (beheading), but as it is, I am not even surprised...and that pisses me off...if I'm even capable any more...Bush naming the offensive in Iraq "shock and awe" seems all too appropriate, as I, and the world certainly have been...but like I said earlier, after a while, it just becomes "disillusioned and surreal"...

[billyboy]

i hate to say it, but you are right...this is our palestine, or our "vietnam" in the desert.i tend to support the war (barely), too after the actions of al qaeda in iraq yesterday

I thought Iraq was in a state of liberation, not war?

I'm sorry, but you fell for the Al Qaeda sucker punch and maybe exposed a major problem in the US mentality - confusion about who the enemy is and what exactly Iraq is all about.


Do people think that the hatred towards America in Iraq is just down to insurgents, and by killing these terrorists, all will be well in Iraq? Beseiging Fallujah, and torturing prisoners are two reasons why the US has major problems with Iraqis who dont support Al Qaeda.

it doesn't make me a conservative or republican, but we need to stamp out terrorism

One man's act of liberation is another man's act of terrorism. Excuse the oxymoron or whatever the term is, but we need to stamp out aggression, full stop.

[poopyhead]

One man's act of liberation is another man's act of terrorism. Excuse the oxymoron or whatever the term is, but we need to stamp out aggression, full stop.

I beleive that is what most Americans thought we were going to be doing in both Iraq and Afghanistan

[Stelliform]

If this is your opinion, do you think it was worth invading Iraq to bring humanitarian betterment and democracy to a people who are capable of such acts?

Yes, because if we didn't try, then we would be predestined to fail. But this behavior has been the accepted in the middle east for centuries, I don't see that changing anytime soon. (Or not changing until there is an outrage from the majority at these acts by a minority.)

[skunk]

Yes, because if we didn't try, then we would be predestined to fail. But this behavior has been the accepted in the middle east for centuries, I don't see that changing anytime soon. (Or not changing until there is an outrage from the majority at these acts by a minority.)
Or, try it another way:
Interviewer: If this is your opinion, do you think it was worth attacking America to bring humanitarian betterment and democracy to a people who are capable of such acts?
Osama Bin Laden: Yes, because if we didn't try, then we would be predestined to fail. But this behavior has been the accepted in the crusader west for centuries, I don't see that changing anytime soon. (Or not changing until there is an outrage from the majority at these acts by a minority.)

[IJ Reilly]

Ha. Or, as they say in the funny papers, "If the shoe fits, buy another one just like it."

[skunk]

Ha. Or, as they say in the funny papers, "If the shoe fits, buy another one just like it."
The sign in my local shoe-shop says: "Buy one, get one free" :D

[mactastic]

From what I've been able to gather, the reaction in the Arab 'street' to Berg's murder has been a mixture of what we've seen here about the Abu Ghraib photos. It runs the gamut from horror to justification. I wonder if Limbaugh is ashamed to have been on the side of those cheerleading our abuses while simultaneously demanding that the other side refrain from cheering. Somehow I doubt it. And in this country the 'outrage over the outrage' is growing among conservatives. Senator Inhofe and House member DeLay both made statements to the effect that our abuses are justified because 'they' are much worse. I wonder if anyone's ever explained the non-equal relationship between two wrongs and a right...

[skunk]

And in this country the 'outrage over the outrage' is growing among conservatives. Senator Inhofe and House member DeLay both made statements to the effect that our abuses are justified because 'they' are much worse. I wonder if anyone's ever explained the non-equal relationship between two wrongs and a right...
How much worse is killing someone than killing someone else? I hope the great US voter understands the fine distinction....

[JesseJames]

I feel absolutely awful for the family of this man. My stomach sank when I saw the still photos and then saw some video of the guy pulling out the knife and hold him onto the floor.
God almighty.
The bastard didn't even have the decency to use a real sword to do it quickly and mercifully. He used a knife. So Berg must've felt every slice as his head was being separated from his body.
I still can hear his screams. Jesus.

[skunk]

I still can hear his screams. Jesus.
Hmm. I wonder if any of the Abu Ghraib videos had sound?

[mactastic]

I feel absolutely awful for the family of this man. My stomach sank when I saw the still photos and then saw some video of the guy pulling out the knife and hold him onto the floor.
God almighty.
The bastard didn't even have the decency to use a real sword to do it quickly and mercifully. He used a knife. So Berg must've felt every slice as his head was being separated from his body.
I still can hear his screams. Jesus.


I agree... the stills of the murder were more than I could stand. I don't even want to hear the screams. Some people are f---ing sick, and I can't even imaging the horror his family is going through right now. His dad sounds pissed at the world, and I can't really blame him. There's not much worse that a parent could go through... which of course is the point of taping and posting this to the internet.

This crime seems to have been committed with the intent to play to American's cultural sensitivity to the sanctity of individual life. IOW, the killers picked a brutal method of death and videotaped it in order to get maximum effect from it. That parallels the photos and video shot in Abu Ghraib.

[skunk]

This crime seems to have been committed with the intent to play to American's cultural sensitivity to the sanctity of individual life.
Huh? :confused:

[JesseJames]

Skunk, say what you like. I know you may just be playing devils advocate but whatever happened at Abu Ghraib; that man Berg didn't deserve to die like that.
No one does.

[mactastic]

Huh? :confused:

IOW, they wanted to horrify the populace. Americans have a 'leave no one behind' mentality that is deeply offended by this kind of murder. Other cultures see individuals as expendable for the cause, or are used to their own being brutally slaughtered, and a single murder wouldn't have this effect.

It falls under the mantra of 'know thine enemy'.

[skunk]

Skunk, say what you like. I know you may just be playing devils advocate but whatever happened at Abu Ghraib; that man Berg didn't deserve to die like that.
No one does.
Of course he didn't.

[mactastic]

Skunk, say what you like. I know you may just be playing devils advocate but whatever happened at Abu Ghraib; that man Berg didn't deserve to die like that.
No one does.

There have been countless people who have died in Iraq who didn't deserve to die the way they did. Berg is just another in a long line of civilian casulties of this war.

[IJ Reilly]

This crime seems to have been committed with the intent to play to American's cultural sensitivity to the sanctity of individual life. IOW, the killers picked a brutal method of death and videotaped it in order to get maximum effect from it. That parallels the photos and video shot in Abu Ghraib.

The crude message seems to be, "You like pictures? We'll give you pictures you won't forget."

In a eerie way, the terrorists appear to understand our cultural media fixations better than we do ourselves. Even though prisoner abuse had been reported long before, it didn't seem to matter to anyone outside of Iraq until the photos appeared. Now, suddenly, it's real -- and it's the images that make it so. That's why I'm so curious to know why anyone would feel compelled to watch the video of this outrage. Does watching the video change the facts of the matter?

[skunk]

IOW, they wanted to horrify the populace. Americans have a 'leave no one behind' mentality that is deeply offended by this kind of murder. Other cultures see individuals as expendable for the cause, or are used to their own being brutally slaughtered, and a single murder wouldn't have this effect.

It falls under the mantra of 'know thine enemy'.
Sorry, you didn't specify: you obviously meant "American" human life. I was confused there for a minute.. ;)

[mactastic]

Hezbollah has even condemned this murder.

[skunk]

Hezbollah has even condemned this murder.
Wow.
No, I mean it.

[mactastic]

Sorry, you didn't specify: you obviously meant "American" human life. I was confused there for a minute.. ;)

Americans in general aren't as bad as you make them out to be. Yes there is a disconnect that allows some to see others as less than human, but if you put a human face on an atrocity many Americans are very sensitive to it. A prolonged hostage crisis with killings like this trickling out slowly would be an absolute national horror.

I'm actually surprised that this tactic has been used so infrequently against us thus far. It is our Achilles heel.

[pseudobrit]

More humane? Do you distrust your country that much? I personally side with the Americans on this one.

Do I distrust my country that much? Of course I do! My country is not supposed to torture prisoners of a country they are claiming to free from an evil, torturing dictator! What more would it take to shake your faith in your country?

Much like Kerry. (Who if you remember claims to have commited such abuse himself when he was a soldier.)

I don't think that he did; that's a bit of Limbaugh spin special going around from old interviews.

And besides, Kerry used this information to try to end the violence, to get the US out of Vietnam. In this instance, the photos/video are used to extend the violence and hatred on both sides. Two completely opposite goals.

I think this is the greatest fear of the Bush opposition. That this act will undermine the use of the Abu Ghraib scandal against Bush.

Did you get that from Rush? You really think those of us who dislike what Bush has done are so shallow? That shows a complete lack of respect for those of us who hold a viewpoint opposite yours.

No, I think this is business as usual for the Middle East.

What, an imperialist juggernaut going in, mucking about and making a general mess of the place?

[skunk]

What, an imperialist juggernaut going in, mucking about and making a general mess of the place?
Oh I don't know: the Ottomans ran a pretty tight ship for a while...

[pseudobrit]

Oh I don't know: the Ottomans ran a pretty tight ship for a while...

Any chance we could give it back?

[blackfox]

Oh I don't know: the Ottomans ran a pretty tight ship for a while...
*ahem* aren't we forgetting someone, Skunk?...(and no, not the French...although they were nearby...)

[poopyhead]

Oh I don't know: the Ottomans ran a pretty tight ship for a while...

until the UK took over after WWI
(not the Americans)

[jefhatfield]

IOW, they wanted to horrify the populace. Americans have a 'leave no one behind' mentality that is deeply offended by this kind of murder. Other cultures see individuals as expendable for the cause, or are used to their own being brutally slaughtered, and a single murder wouldn't have this effect.

It falls under the mantra of 'know thine enemy'.

war is hell, or some saying like that

when the terrible news of pearl harbor hit, america in unison were completely outraged...1100 dead on the arizona alone...many drowned while they tapped on the side of the ship and most rescue efforts were futile

fast forward six decades...9/11 got many americans on board for a total war against terrorism while many citizens died...but many americans, including me, were not so sure of the "kill, ask questions later" concept of the bush administration when fighting terrorism

then came the slow, torturous beheading of nick berg...i think many americans started to be on board with a war on terrorism for the first time, and some may even fully support all aspects of w's war on iraq

i now have no qualms about killing terrorists after all the current events of the last few years and yesterday especially, and to a point, i see why we may need to extend the iraq war (to catch the al qaeda thugs), but no matter what, i cannot just blindly say that everything that bush did in iraq from the beginnng was "right"

the terrorists are using their only weapon they have..shocking, unacceptable torture and targeting of innocent civilians...and sometimes, public mutilations of their dead bodies

we have wmd's...nuke, chemical, and biological and that is our extent of our extreme "desperate" warfare

i think yesterday's al qaeda torture killing has justified our wmd's when needed...but i wouldn't be surprised if it was found that the usa used some form of non conventional warfare already

during the first gulf war, a cnn reporter thought the usa forces used a tactical nuke (1+ mile area of total destruction with little fallout) but the comment describing a huge explosion went largely unnoticed after initial reports

some us troops came home with symptoms consistent with exposure to advanced chemical weapons...our chemical weapons some say since it has never been proved iraq had that capability then, or now

before this thing is up, there will be atrocities from both sides and the usa will eventually have to resort to major weapons of mass destruction since i can't see the us forces using terrorist tactics, outright torture, and car bombs to fight al qaeda or iraqi insurgents/freedom fighters

[wowser]

i now have no qualms about killing terrorists after all the current events of the last few years and yesterday especially, and to a point, i see why we may need to extend the iraq war (to catch the al qaeda thugs)


You have to be kidding if you think that you can 'wipe out all the terrorists' - operations in Iraq, sanctions on Syria etc, simply produce more terrorists. The only way to 'win the war on terror' is to inprove foreign policy - diplomacy rather than hard power.






before this thing is up, there will be atrocities from both sides and the usa will eventually have to resort to major weapons of mass destruction since i can't see the us forces using terrorist tactics, outright torture, and car bombs to fight al qaeda or iraqi insurgents/freedom fighters

Using WMD's on Iraq would be an irony that could only belong in a film. We invaded Iraq because we thought they had WMD's - then when we found none, it was turned into a mission to 'liberate the people of Iraq', to rebuild the country.
What sort of screwed up message would be sent by using WMD's????? :rolleyes:

So I doubt even Bush would be crazy to do that. Like in Vietman - they could have used nukes at any time, but didn't

[IJ Reilly]

So I doubt even Bush would be crazy to do that. Like in Vietman - they could have used nukes at any time, but didn't

Not like nuking North Vietnam wasn't suggested by some of the nuttier hawks at the time. It came down to a small matter of starting WWIII.

[busasa]

exactly, if the US had use the nuke at the time, I gurantee that the USSR would have something to say as well. The situation is quite different in the Middle East now, rather than a state to state traditionary warfare, we have terroist groups that are fighting for their religious belief. For anyone who thinks that those terroists are just brain-washed killing machines, they are simply wrong. Bin Laden, if my memory served me right, is a well educated, wealthy person who does not like the idea of US imperialism very much. The past struggles in the Middle East were more or less influenced by the western power from Israel to Iraq. Thus, the situation might be better served if the US can use a more diplomatic method to solve the problem rather than using the ol' traditional militarial strength to eliminate terroism. There will only be more terroists if the US is still occupying the Iraq. It will be a better strategy if the US can shed off its imperialistic image and tries to get the people in the ME to their side. The WMD comment was just plain ignorant, for people who think 1. terrorists would all gather up in one spot for US to hit them. 2. the entire region of ME and the rest of the world would happily see US employing such a weapon. they have no idea what is going on in the war on Iraq.

[jefhatfield]

Not like nuking North Vietnam wasn't suggested by some of the nuttier hawks at the time. It came down to a small matter of starting WWIII.

during vietnam, we only had large scale strategic nukes...ones designed to take out hundreds of thousands of people per missile

not that nukes are a great way to go, but we have neutron bombs and these nukes are designed to take out very small areas with a very sure kill rate...sure we can blanket bomb the same area with a b-52, but that would kill more people and be less accurate

and as mentioned before, stategic nukes are too big

in an area like the mountainous regions of afganistan, cornering bin laden may not be possible and the use of a very small, but devastating tactical nuke may be an option

the usa now has chemical weapons which can temporarily blind a combatant without killing them or having them die the barbaric death of a world war I style mustard gas

along with the common conventional weapons, we need to get creative in our war on terrorism

and yes, use diplomacy where possible, but it can't all be done peacefully...at least not yet in our world accustomed to war and violent conflict

i would love it if all countries could abolish heavily armed militaries and this may happen one day, but not in our lifetimes

[Sayhey]

during vietnam, we only had large scale strategic nukes...ones designed to take out hundreds of thousands of people per missile

not that nukes are a great way to go, but we have neutron bombs and these nukes are designed to take out very small areas with a very sure kill rate...sure we can blanket bomb the same area with a b-52, but that would kill more people and be less accurate

and as mentioned before, stategic nukes are too big

in an area like the mountainous regions of afganistan, cornering bin laden may not be possible and the use of a very small, but devastating tactical nuke may be an option

Jeff,

take a step back and reread your post. Are you really advocating the use of tactical nukes? Do you have any idea what that would mean to the rest of the world? What kind of new arms race would we be setting off? Jeff, I know you, and many of the rest of us, are outraged by the killing of Berg, but this would be absolutely crazy.

[jefhatfield]

Jeff,

take a step back and reread your post. Are you really advocating the use of tactical nukes? Do you have any idea what that would mean to the rest of the world? What kind of new arms race would we be setting off? Jeff, I know you, and many of the rest of us, are outraged by the killing of Berg, but this would be absolutely crazy.


i think you have an image of a strategic icbm and that is not what i am advocating...use of a strategic nuke would definitely escalate into a third world war and possibly the end of the human race

how do you think, as used in the last gulf war, that massive b-52 bombings are any more "humane" than a small tactical nuke? a tactical nuke does present a scarier image to the enemy yet does not kill the same ratio of innocents that a full scale b-52 raid would

in vietnam, before tactical nukes, we used those heavy air force bombers and though we lost over 50000 troops, the vietnamese lost 2 million civilians...many to large b-52s which scarcely had more accuracy than wwII bombers

[dopefiend]

I saw the video.

You can hear them saying "allah allah" a whole lot. These ****ies covered their faces the whole time. I really hope they get caught and punished.

That poor, poor guy. My heart goes out to his family and friends.

[Sayhey]

The moment the nuclear threshold is crossed in a war, by the use of tactical or strategic versions of the weapon, it will change everything. It doesn't matter if more damage could be done by carpet bombing with conventional weapons. We would be sending a message that the US is willing to use such weapons without being attacked first with them. It would say to the world that nothing is ruled out in our attempt to impose our will. It will change our relation with every nuclear power and it will be telling every nation that they had better figure a way to get such weapons if they want to stop the US from using them on them. Ever since Nagasaki the world has tried to stop this from happening, how can we now advocate the idea that somehow the use of nukes is just a normal part of our warfare.

[blackfox]

i think you have an image of a strategic icbm and that is not what i am advocating...use of a strategic nuke would definitely escalate into a third world war and possibly the end of the human race

how do you think, as used in the last gulf war, that massive b-52 bombings are any more "humane" than a small tactical nuke? a tactical nuke does present a scarier image to the enemy yet does not kill the same ratio of innocents that a full scale b-52 raid would

in vietnam, before tactical nukes, we used those heavy air force bombers and though we lost over 50000 troops, the vietnamese lost 2 million civilians...many to large b-52s which scarcely had more accuracy than wwII bombers
'Tactical nuclear weapons' (TNWs) include a broad array of atomic explosive devices, ranging from so-called nuclear landmines and nuclear artillery shells to air-dropped or missile launched nuclear warheads. TNW yields range from relatively low (0.1 kiloton (KT)) to higher than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (10-15 KT, upwards to 1 megaton). Even a very low-yield atomic blast would create highly damaging effects, above and beyond what a conventional explosion of the same size could produce. Furthermore, because TNWs are often smaller in size, and because of the manner which they are safeguarded and deployed, TNW are more susceptible to theft and unauthorized or accidental use. Misuse of a TNW would cause unprecedented destruction, and potentially lead to a broader nuclear exchange.
I think nuclear weaponry is exceedingly dangerous in any form, as the above excerpt partially covers. In addition, as Vietnam for the USA and Aghanistan for the Soviets proved, you cannot defeat a guerilla army by sheer destructive power...Al Qaeda for example, are amorphous and diffused throughout a varied area around the region. I believe another solution must be found.

[zimv20]

if the response to 3000 deaths plus one beheading is nuclear, then i must declare that a very emotional response indeed.

a nuke is a nuke is a nuke. can we leave that pandora's box closed, please? that's not the america in which i want to live.

[skunk]

if the response to 3000 deaths plus one beheading is nuclear, then i must declare that a very emotional response indeed.

a nuke is a nuke is a nuke. can we leave that pandora's box closed, please? that's not the america in which i want to live.
There would not be much prospect of your living anywhere!

[takao]

the use of tactical nuclear weapons would destroy the international reputation of the USA completly . period.
i guess the NATO would break up.... which would leave the USA alone

[billyboy]

What a scary turn this debate has taken. There are 11000 US citizens shot to death in their own country every bloody year - by their own people. Get a grip and put some perspective on the death of one man. Do you really think there is anything to be gained by revenging his beheading with the nuking of nations. Blimey.

Why not make his death the turning point in seeking a peaceful way ahead. Has no one ever heard of turn the other cheek? That is bravery, unlike what seems to be a typical US trait these days of knee jerk smash 'em dead reaction to "shocking events".

[Thanatoast]

Why not make his death the turning point in seeking a peaceful way ahead. Has no one ever heard of turn the other cheek? That is bravery, unlike what seems to be a typical US trait these days of knee jerk smash 'em dead reaction to "shocking events".no, no, that would be appeasing. don't you see? if we stop acting like dip****s, it means the terrorists have won.

given four more years i would not be surprised to see bush find a reason to nuke somebody. i would further not be surprised to see half the nation go along with it. i would further not be surprised to see the rest of the world put up with it.

[Zaid]

Al-Jazeera has an article summarising arab public opinion on this disgraceful act.

Arabs react to Berg decapitation (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3897D0E4-B263-46FA-B96D-A89AA3C4F4C8.htm)



Arab public opinion over the decapitation of an American hostage in Iraq has varied, with many calling it barbaric while others see it as a natural response to US violence

"That man went to help rebuild Iraq. I am very sad that he was killed but his stupid government put him there...If his family are looking where to put the blame, they shouldn't look further than the White House," Cairo office worker Mansur Muhammad said.


"This action was bad because it makes Arabs look like barbarians but that's what the Americans think anyway. My fear is that now Americans will feel Iraqis deserve the torture," said Mamduh, an Egyptian pharmacy student who did not want to give his full name

...

Some Arabs said Abu Musab Zarqawi, a leading al-Qaida figure who is alleged to have led the decapitation, had failed the very people he said he was avenging by strengthening Washington's hand in Iraq.

Others said the killing was against the teachings of Islam.

"Zarqawi is an enemy of the Arab and Muslim nation because he distorted their image and portrayed Islam in an incorrect manner," said Hasan Ahmad Jar Allah, 41, a Saudi government employee, who had seen the tape on the Internet.

"What religion or sect condones such a barbaric act? This is abominable, God curse Zarqawi," he said of the tape which showed masked men sawing Berg's head off with a large knife and holding it in the air.

...

To others Berg's beheading was an appropriate response to what they see as US abuses against ordinary Iraqi civilians as well as prisoners.

"This was a justified retaliation. The Americans had committed very ugly actions against the Iraqi people in general and Iraqi prisoners in particular," said Muhammad al-Barguti, a
24-year-old security guard in the West Bank city of Ram Allah.

...


Seems similar to the breadth of US opinion on the torture of Iraqis. Some condeming it, others seemingly trying to justify it.


Also note that the english version of the al-jazeera website is english.aljazeera.net (the above site).

aljazeera.com is run by a bunch of cybersquatters based in London

[IJ Reilly]

What a scary turn this debate has taken. There are 11000 US citizens shot to death in their own country every bloody year - by their own people.

Yeah, but none of those deaths were video taped. So possibly they didn't really happen.

[toontra]

Yeah, but none of those deaths were video taped. So possibly they didn't really happen.

Yep. We now know that Rummy doesn't understand anything that is not in "3-D" visual format!

[busasa]

well... if we wait for four more yrs, I would also not be surprised to see a similar attack like the 911 happening on the US soil. If that's what you want, then Im afraid the method of using violence against violence is not really going to work in this case. There will be just more casualties and not any resolution.

[skunk]

Yep. We now know that Rummy doesn't understand anything that is not in "3-D" visual format!
I just heard that man on the BBC saying that America was the "world's best last hope". God help us all! :eek: :eek: :eek:

[IJ Reilly]

I just heard that man on the BBC saying that America was the "world's best last hope". God help us all!

Well that depends. What are you hoping for?

[poopyhead]

well... if we wait for four more yrs, I would also not be surprised to see a similar attack like the 911 happening on the US soil. If that's what you want, then Im afraid the method of using violence against violence is not really going to work in this case. There will be just more casualties and not any resolution.

I think that will happen anyway with or without bush. There is a general hatred of america in the world which preceded bushyII, sure he has increased the level of hatred but it existed prior to his election. 911 occurred before the world knew of bushy's stupidity and ineptness, certainly another will occur after he is gone.

[skunk]

Well that depends. What are you hoping for?
Big question. I want a world where diversity is appreciated.

[IJ Reilly]

Big question. I want a world where diversity is appreciated.

Well if you're going to be difficult...

[skunk]

Well if you're going to be difficult...
I know, I know. You did ask... :rolleyes:

[zimv20]

2March04 article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/)


With Tuesday’s attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq.

But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger.

In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

“Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.

The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it.* By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.

“People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.

In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq.

The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

(more)


oops

[Rower_CPU]

2March04 article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/)

oops

Put that together with this (http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/8658110.htm) and you've got a political boondoggle.

[poopyhead]

Put that together with this (http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/8658110.htm) and you've got a political boondoggle.

so thats good right

i mean we now know it was Abu Musab Zarqawi
so given the culture of Iraq
we could
compare a ski mask to a woman's burka
point out that Zarqawi's weak arms led to him being unable to slaughter the american in a manly fashion
photoshop Zarqawi's picture onto one of the undisclosed sadistic homoerotic pictures from the prison
and then
insinuate that he is homosexual
rendering him impotent politically

[blackfox]

so thats good right

i mean we now know it was Abu Musab Zarqawi
so given the culture of Iraq
we could
compare a ski mask to a woman's burka
point out that Zarqawi's weak arms led to him being unable to slaughter the american in a manly fashion
photoshop Zarqawi's picture onto one of the undisclosed sadistic homoerotic pictures from the prison
and then
insinuate that he is homosexual
rendering him impotent politically
Say what now? Either I'm stupid, or this is stupid...probably both.

[skunk]

Say what now? Either I'm stupid, or this is stupid...probably both.
Nah! :rolleyes:

[poopyhead]

I guess my point was
well
I had no point, it was apparently a poor attempt at dark humor
although
I am sure that
this guys death
which the father adamantly blames on the bush administration
will be turned around and used by bush as some sort of rallying cry to ingratiate himself and his administration

[blackfox]

I guess my point was
well
I had no point, it was apparently a poor attempt at dark humor
although
I am sure that
this guys death
which the father adamantly blames on the bush administration
will be turned around and used by bush as some sort of rallying cry to ingratiate himself and his administration
Well, I understand that...sadly

[jefhatfield]

well... if we wait for four more yrs, I would also not be surprised to see a similar attack like the 911 happening on the US soil. If that's what you want, then Im afraid the method of using violence against violence is not really going to work in this case. There will be just more casualties and not any resolution.


the usa just can't ignore 9-11 and treat it peacefully

unfortunately, force will have to be used one way or another in capturing or killing bin laden and i think many will see this as justified

on the other hand, i have never met a fellow american who buys w's lame excuse of wmd's as a reason to invade and occupy iraq

when clinton was president, many criticized his use of force in the balkans but it was not clinton, or any american president per se that waged an act of violence in the balkans for whatever reason, the pressure of the usa being the only superpower was tremendous and some thought we couldn't just sit there and watch attrocities happen

so we went in with military force to end violence and yes, us troops killed people

was that the right thing to do? and is it right that w liberated iraq using military force?

if i had the luxury to live in another country, it might be easy for me to say americans are all violent and warmongers ready to get into every fight on the planet, but it's not that simple

sometimes, the us does have to use force and a result is always dead innocent people

the usa went after hitler, tojo, and mussolini in world war II and yes, us troops did kill innocent civilians

being an american, i feel that (some) conflicts were the right thing to do and i admit, i don't always sleep well at night knowing my country has been involved in so many wars and that often, perhaps too often, we may have been in the wrong

i also do see how many people may come to hate america and i won't even attempt to try and have anybody try and understand america's vast involvement in wars around the world...and in the end, i don't know if any call to arms is completely justified

the world is not a black and white place and it is those grey areas which kill innocent people everyday...history may probably not see america as a country that has used its powerful status wisely...the violent ways of war are a shame and it's worse made by the fact that america, the world's only superpower, is caught up in it

[blackfox]

the usa just can't ignore 9-11 and treat it peacefully

unfortunately, force will have to be used one way or another in capturing or killing bin laden and i think many will see this as justified

on the other hand, i have never met a fellow american who buys w's lame excuse of wmd's as a reason to invade and occupy iraq

when clinton was president, many criticized his use of force in the balkans but it was not clinton, or any american president per se that waged an act of violence in the balkans for whatever reason, the pressure of the usa being the only superpower was tremendous and some thought we couldn't just sit there and watch attrocities happen

so we went in with military force to end violence and yes, us troops killed people

was that the right thing to do? and is it right that w liberated iraq using military force?

if i had the luxury to live in another country, it might be easy for me to say americans are all violent and warmongers ready to get into every fight on the planet, but it's not that simple

sometimes, the us does have to use force and a result is always dead innocent people

the usa went after hitler, tojo, and mussolini in world war II and yes, us troops did kill innocent civilians

being an american, i feel that (some) conflicts were the right thing to do and i admit, i don't always sleep well at night knowing my country has been involved in so many wars and that often, perhaps too often, we may have been in the wrong

i also do see how many people may come to hate america and i won't even attempt to try and have anybody try and understand america's vast involvement in wars around the world...and in the end, i don't know if any call to arms is completely justified

the world is not a black and white place and it is those grey areas which kill innocent people everyday...history may probably not see america as a country that has used its powerful status wisely...the violent ways of war are a shame and it's worse made by the fact that america, the world's only superpower, is caught up in it
I cannot speak for everyone of course Jef, but I agree with what you have written...although I personally find violence morally repugnant, I do understand that it needs to be exercised from time to time, although in many cases innocent people get killed, and humanity does some pretty questionable things in the course of war. To deal with terrorism, I do feel that some violent action will need to be used, but not as the only course of action.

What makes this war in Iraq so objectionable, is that it was not done intelligently and the fact that Domestic Political goals seemed to trump any decisive operational goals...IMHO, if you frame this as a part of the "war on terrorism", it has done nothing correct. We eschewed tactical strikes against particular terrorist leaders, and pulled valuble intelligence resources out of looking for Bin Laden, to deal with Iraq. We deployed our troops w/o a thought to how to handle things once Saddam had fallen, and failed to equip or train them adequately for the multitude of tasks that must be handled day-to-day. We streched thin, and overworked these troops on long rotations, and the WH ignored or circumvented any decent intelligence strategy from its' commanders on the ground. We alienated any help we might have gotten from our traditional allies by a "my way or the highway" policy, and proceeded to piss off the people we were liberating by clumsy, condescending and ignorant attitudes of interacting with them (possibly again from lack of training). Then we proceeded to deliberately abuse and humiliate our them and film it. We blamed neigboring countries (iran and syria) off meddling in affairs, and allowing terrorists into Iraq, even though it was our responsibility to deal with border security of Iraq, as occupiers. All the while consistently denying them the right to any attempt at self-determination that we had promised we were bringing...and all of this adds up to an extremely inefficient war effort, where people have died and suffered needlessly, and we have spent enough money to fight several more efficient engagements, overhaul healthcare or balance the budget after a recession. We have given Muslims reasons to rally behind muslim extremists and unite against a foreign enemy for the first time in years. Through all of this the WH refuses to admit its mistakes to itself, the nation, or the world and even with graphic proof of American wrongdoing, only makes a half-hearted apology to the same...

I do not like terrorists, and certainly do not want any harm to come to innocent American civilians (or any, for that matter), and I would support some degree of military action towards their nuetralization. I believe this would have (or could be) better accomplished by better intelligence in both quality and coordination w/ the world, and possibly small, special-forces strikes on particular targets to minimize any impact outside of our target(s). You do not use a large, traditional military force against an amorphous enemy. This coupled with better diplomacy with the leaders of that region, in attempts to make our goals mutually beneficial, as terrorist are a natural enemy of stability, this being done w/o coercion or condescension and a sense of flexibility on any demands they might have on us in return, in service of our goal. We could let our leaders and experts in the intelligence or military do their jobs effectively, w/o hamstringing them with unrealistic goals, or resource or creative limitations. If they don't, we fire them. Of course, Rumsfeld did merge the Special forces back into the regular military, Bush has pissed off most world leaders, and even if he didn't he couldn't talk his way out of a paper bag (i.e poor diplomatic skills). We probably no longer have the money, to adequately fund these measures now either, and half of the domestic populace is so cynical about the Administration and the War, that most measures, however good, will probably be ill-received. Oh, and we could finally fund our domestic security initiatives BTW.

Make no mistake, I am not always a dove, but I have never supported arrogance and incompetence...and if anyone really wants any hope at an effective change in strategy in dealing with the terror threat, go to the polls in Nov. and vote out Bush and Co. Because in the words of his father circa 1989, if you ask GW to change..."...Not gunna do it..." These are dangerous stakes, and should be above partisan bickering...if GW was doing a good job, I would give him credit...if there was a Democrat in office doing as bad, I would condemn him also...but unless you want to be another Isreal with walls and checkpoints everywhere...choose carefully. End Rant.

[Sayhey]

Jeff and Blackfox,

both excellent posts. I don't disagree with any of it.

[Thanatoast]

Blackfox, that was excellent. Will you please print that out and send it to every newspaper in the country? I'd do it myself, but they won't take submissions from people other than the author.

[IJ Reilly]

Agreed. Blackfox, with a bit of editing, this would make an excellent op-ed submission to your local paper. I'd encourage you to give it a try, and if you need a bit of help with editing, please let me know.

[zimv20]

link (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast/05/13/berg.encounter/index.html)


Berg's encounter with 'terrorist' revealed

Friday, May 14, 2004 Posted: 8:01 AM EDT (1201 GMT)

WEST CHESTER, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- When Nicholas Berg took an Oklahoma bus to a remote college campus a few years ago, the American recently beheaded by terrorists allowed a man with terrorist connections to use his laptop computer, according to his father.

Michael Berg said the FBI investigated the matter more than a year ago. He stressed that his son was in no way connected to the terrorists who captured and killed him.

Government sources told CNN that the encounter involved an acquaintance of Zacarias Moussaoui -- the only person publicly charged in the United States in connection with the September 11, 2001, terror attacks.


"It turned out this guy was a terrorist and that he, you know, used my son's e-mail, amongst many other people's e-mail who he did the same thing to," Berg said.

Government sources said Berg gave the man his password, which was later used by Moussaoui, the sources said.

[wowser]

Berg and his family seem like very decent people to me. It's a nice slap in the face to Bush that Berg's father blames the Bush admin directly for his son's death and is strongly opposed to the war. Hopefully that should stop reactionary 'news' channels like Fox using Berg's death as propaganda to legitimize the war.

[Voltron]

Berg and his family seem like very decent people to me. It's a nice slap in the face to Bush that Berg's father blames the Bush admin directly for his son's death and is strongly opposed to the war. Hopefully that should stop reactionary 'news' channels like Fox using Berg's death as propaganda to legitimize the war.
Had Berg gone to the Phillipines to look for a job and terrorist beheaded him there would it still be Bush's fault?

[wowser]

Had Berg gone to the Phillipines to look for a job and terrorist beheaded him there would it still be Bush's fault?

talk about hypothetical!

[IJ Reilly]

For the most disgusting, frightening and gut-wrenching take on this event, take a look at what Michael Savage said the other day:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200405130004

A small sample:

And I think there should be no mercy shown to these sub-humans. I believe that a thousand of them should be killed tomorrow. I think a thousand of them held in the Iraqi prison should be given 24 hour -- a trial and executed. I think they need to be shown that we are not going to roll over to them. It won't happen. It won't happen because of the CBS Communists. It won't happen because of the CNN traitors. I won't happen because of the MSNBC empty heads. And we the people are the ones who are going to suffer today. ...

Instead of putting joysticks, I would have liked to have seen dynamite put in their orifices and they should be dropped from airplanes. How's that? You like that one? Go call somebody that you want to report me to, see if I care. They should put dynamite in their behinds and drop them from 35,000 feet, the whole pack of scum out of that jail. Thank you CBS. Thank you New Yorker. Thank you Carl Levin. Thank you Ted Kennedy. Thank you Hillary Clinton. I'm sure that Mr. Berg's parents appreciate what you've done for them.

What Limbaugh is saying these days isn't much more civilized. These people are in the process of ripping the very soul out of our nation, and I honestly don't think we can take much more of this kind of abuse from them. This is extremely scary stuff.

[takao]

For the most disgusting, frightening and gut-wrenching take on this event, take a look at what Michael Savage said the other day:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200405130004

OMG.. that guy is insane...

hmm this quote is interesting:

"Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship... voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. "
Hermann Goering, From a conversation with psychologist Gustave Gilbert while jailed at Nuremburg on the evening of 18 April 1946, documented in Gilbert's book "Nuremburg Diary."

[wowser]

I read the Michael Savage artcile genuinly open-mouthed and shocked.

[IJ Reilly]

That's right, the sound of goose-stepping grows ever closer. I'm through trying to figure out why these sick, twisted people believe what they believe, or how they manage to get away with saying it daily to millions of Americans, who nod in approval. The day comes when every person needs to decide on which side of the divide they stand. To me it's never been clearer that we're fighting for the very future of our nation, and how we decide can't help but have a profound impact on the rest of the world.

[wowser]

That's right, the sound of goose-stepping grows ever closer. I'm through trying to figure out why these sick, twisted people believe what they believe, or how they manage to get away with saying it daily to millions of Americans, who nod in approval. The day comes when every person needs to decide on which side of the divide they stand. To me it's never been clearer that we're fighting for the very future of our nation, and how we decide can't help but have a profound impact on the rest of the world.

Being English , I am unfamiliar with this Michael Savage. I only hope that his popularity is down to people wanting to be shcoked , rather than people who agree with him. I also hope that Michael Savage's real feelings are far removed from what he broadcasts and that his radio show is designed purely to shock. I hope...

[blackfox]

Agreed. Blackfox, with a bit of editing, this would make an excellent op-ed submission to your local paper. I'd encourage you to give it a try, and if you need a bit of help with editing, please let me know.
Thanks all, I will submit this for what it is worth, although I wish I didn't have to write it...IJ, what is ironic about your post is that I AM an editor...(although for film)...will let you know what happens...

[IJ Reilly]

Being English , I am unfamiliar with this Michael Savage. I only hope that his popularity is down to people wanting to be shcoked , rather than people who agree with him. I also hope that Michael Savage's real feelings are far removed from what he broadcasts and that his radio show is designed purely to shock. I hope...

As I said, I'm beyond trying to analyze why they spew this bile, or why anyone would listen to it. I know only at this point that they do, and they do -- which is enough for me. Here's Rush Limbaugh on the same subject (also from the mediamatter.org site):

The images left a searing impression on the Senators and House members. Some described images of Iraqi women exposing their breasts [quoting from unnamed news source]." I guess that's -- you're not supposed to do that outside the Kennedy compound. "[Again, quoting from unnamed news source] Others remembered photos of a shackled prisoner repeatedly banging his head against the wall. There were images of three U.S. soldiers beating an Iraqi prisoner. And there were many sexual images, some of simulated acts, and others including actual intercourse between male and female soldiers." [takes a deep breath]

These guys got to be careful. They're now calling sex torture. This is the fastest 180 among the progressive pop culture society I have seen.

Nobody ever accused Limbaugh, or his devoted audience, of not believing 110% in what he says.

[Sayhey]

Being English , I am unfamiliar with this Michael Savage. I only hope that his popularity is down to people wanting to be shcoked , rather than people who agree with him. I also hope that Michael Savage's real feelings are far removed from what he broadcasts and that his radio show is designed purely to shock. I hope...

Unfortunately, you're hope is wrong on both counts. He is a vile racist that has been doing this for a very long time. The stations that have carried his programs have gradually tired of being associated with his views and he has had to move on to new stations that are desperate for ratings. So, yes he uses shock to make his living, but by all accounts he believes this crap.

[IJ Reilly]

Thanks all, I will submit this for what it is worth, although I wish I didn't have to write it...IJ, what is ironic about your post is that I AM an editor...(although for film)...will let you know what happens...

I write freelance for newspapers on a regular basis, so I've got some insight into what press editors like to see. A couple of hints: break it into shorter paragraphs; even one-sentence paragraphs work in newspaper writing when used for emphasis. Sentences beginning with a conjunction are also acceptable. (Both of these, we learned in school, are major grammatical sins, but they're used frequently in newspaper writing! Somebody once gave me a really bad time about starting a sentence in a column of mine with the word "and." I was accused of not understanding English grammar. So I pulled a John Updike novel off my shelf, and opening to a random page, found him beginning a paragraph with "and." So now by my calculations, I should be up for a Pulitzer!)

Let me know if you'd like any help. Seriously. I find editing my own stuff to be a complete bear.

[blackfox]

I write freelance for newspapers on a regular basis, so I've got some insight into what press editors like to see. A couple of hints: break it into shorter paragraphs; even one-sentence paragraphs work in newspaper writing when used for emphasis. Sentences beginning with a conjunction are also acceptable. (Both of these, we learned in school, are major grammatical sins, but they're used frequently in newspaper writing! Somebody once gave me a really bad time about starting a sentence in a column of mine with the word "and." I was accused of not understanding English grammar. So I pulled a John Updike novel off my shelf, and opening to a random page, found him beginning a paragraph with "and." So now by my calculations, I should be up for a Pulitzer!)

Let me know if you'd like any help. Seriously. I find editing my own stuff to be a complete bear.
Thanks again IJ, I may PM you something when I get the time...self-editing can be a pain.

[coopdog]

Has anyone watched the full video of the decapitation? I have, its really pretty bad. Very bloody.

[wowser]

Has anyone watched the full video of the decapitation? I have, its really pretty bad. Very bloody.

No and have no desire to.

[zimv20]

Has anyone watched the full video of the decapitation? I have, its really pretty bad. Very bloody.
i tried twice. both times, i never get past the stills and aborted my effort.

[wowser]

let's not let our morbid curiosity get the better of us. :( I was gonna check out a link to it my friend had sent, then I just thought of his father and his family, and that set me straight.

[Neserk]

Has anyone watched the full video of the decapitation? I have, its really pretty bad. Very bloody.

Not personally, but my husband did. He was an EMT in a previous life so he has seen some pretty nasty things. He was deeply disturbed by the video...

[wowser]

What's an 'EMT'? :confused:

[Neserk]

What's an 'EMT'? :confused:

Emergency Medical Technician. He was in the ambulance with the paramedics.

[jefhatfield]

OMG.. that guy is insane...



i remember savage when he was a moderate on kgo but some of the talk show hosts took to becoming shock jocks and gaining national attention...no longer were they saying what they believed, but they said whatever they could to shock people

dr. laura used to be on there and even though most listeners were repulsed by many of her views, she kept them listening and put the rating through the roof