NationStates Jolt Archive

First the Berg video came out, and it was reported that it wasn't Zarqawi because the speaker used the wrong dialect.

Then they said it WAS Zarqawi... the new and improved boogeyman... after further analysis.

Now they have arrested four Fedayeen members for the killing (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040521/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_berg_arrests_10), with one member of that group: Yasser al-Sabawi, a nephew of Saddam Hussein, still not captured.

That would add up nicely to the five people in the video.

So - care to lay bets as to who it was that really did it?

After all, the government also claimed that Zarqawi had had a leg removed in a baghdad hospital as part of their claims that there was an offical tie to Saddam, but the person in the video moved very naturally indicating that they probably had all of his original limbs.

I dunno. Just thinking out loud.

In any case, if it was these guys I hope they hand them over to the next Iraqi government for sentancing under strict Sharia Law. One good beheading deserves another sometimes.

-Z-

Not only has al-Zarqawi got a prosthetic leg that has miraculously healed, he might not even be alive. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-1025728,00.html)

Why are the hawks in such an apoplectic fit about this beheading?

Surely to use their own terminology this man is nothing but collateral damage.

It doesn't matter who did it, as long as they are brought before a jury and tried for their crimes.

Are the hawks in an uproar over this? I thought it was getting surprisingly little media coverage, at least in the US. I expected a lot more grandstanding. Perhaps Rumsfeld is too busy "taking full responsibility" for the new round of prison abuse photos to give it much attention?

I also thought they had released two of the four people they detained on Wednesday?

Aren't there still very legitimate questions as to if Berg was even alive when the killing took place? The lack of body movement, the lack of blood, the length of the scream, etc?

Zep: If it was faked, why? It didn't help the Bush admin... his parents are blaming HIM! It certainly gives more fuel to people of the anti-america/defeatist cause, in saying we need to get out of Iraq.

And those who know we are doing the right thing in Iraq are only enraged further for their cause.

Zep: If it was faked, why? It didn't help the Bush admin... his parents are blaming HIM! It certainly gives more fuel to people of the anti-america/defeatist cause, in saying we need to get out of Iraq.

And those who know we are doing the right thing in Iraq are only enraged further for their cause.Here's the thing, Raysia--just because certain elements of the tape might have been faked doesn't mean that Bush or the military or the CIA or whatever other boogeyman a conspiracy theorist wants to come up with is necessarily responsible.

I look at it this way--even if it wasn't Zarqawi, the tape still had the desired effect on the two major groups in Iraq right now. For the people who see the US as occupiers, it was an effective propaganda and recruiting tool because those people see the tape as a strike against the occupiers. For those who support the US actions, it was effective because it deflected attention from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, at least for a little while.

The sad thing is that both sides benefited from this in some way. The ones who didn't benefit are the Berg family.

Why are the hawks in such an apoplectic fit about this beheading?

Surely to use their own terminology this man is nothing but collateral damage.

Excuse me?..and just how is deliberately targetting an innocent man and knowingly hack at him THREE FRIGGIN TIMES TIL THE HEAD COMES OFF, and two more just for kicks equate to potential victims that were not intentionally targetted?

Berg was a peacemaker. It would have been convenient for the occupying army to get him out of the way and create a distraction from the prison atrocities without losing anyone who supports their cause.

Why are the hawks in such an apoplectic fit about this beheading?

Surely to use their own terminology this man is nothing but collateral damage.

Excuse me?..and just how is deliberately targetting an innocent man and knowingly hack at him THREE FRIGGIN TIMES TIL THE HEAD COMES OFF, and two more just for kicks equate to potential victims that were not intentionally targetted?

War is hell as the hawks insist on telling us.

Why are the hawks in such an apoplectic fit about this beheading?

Surely to use their own terminology this man is nothing but collateral damage.

Excuse me?..and just how is deliberately targetting an innocent man and knowingly hack at him THREE FRIGGIN TIMES TIL THE HEAD COMES OFF, and two more just for kicks equate to potential victims that were not intentionally targetted?

War is hell as the hawks insist on telling us.

That's actually a really good point, HW. We've been bombarded in the US by the hawk's mantra that it's going to be a long, hard slog in Iraq. We're told that it's going to get worse before it gets better (Rumsfeld even specifically said this about the abuse photos, which was ominous in the extreme). So, in order to maintain this line, how can the hawks now claim to be outraged about the killing of Nick Berg? Doesn't such an attitude sort of invalidate their own propoganda.

Why are the hawks in such an apoplectic fit about this beheading?

Surely to use their own terminology this man is nothing but collateral damage.

Excuse me?..and just how is deliberately targetting an innocent man and knowingly hack at him THREE FRIGGIN TIMES TIL THE HEAD COMES OFF, and two more just for kicks equate to potential victims that were not intentionally targetted?

War is hell as the hawks insist on telling us.

That's actually a really good point, HW. We've been bombarded in the US by the hawk's mantra that it's going to be a long, hard slog in Iraq. We're told that it's going to get worse before it gets better (Rumsfeld even specifically said this about the abuse photos, which was ominous in the extreme). So, in order to maintain this line, how can the hawks now claim to be outraged about the killing of Nick Berg? Doesn't such an attitude sort of invalidate their own propoganda.

Very Well...if HW is correct in his assertion..and I have no real foundation to get all righteous bout Berg because.."War is hell" as you quote..then I'm all for doing away with any aspect of the Geneva Conventions, and sytematically terminate every terrorist in Abu Gharib prison..put them on their knees, take a rusty K-Bar combat knife and attempt to saw thrut their necks.

Zep: If it was faked, why? It didn't help the Bush admin... his parents are blaming HIM! It certainly gives more fuel to people of the anti-america/defeatist cause, in saying we need to get out of Iraq.

And those who know we are doing the right thing in Iraq are only enraged further for their cause.

Errr.... was what faked?

I don't think I ever suggested in any way that the execution of Berg did not happen. I have just found it interesting how who the cuplrits were seems to have changed a few times.

-Z-

Why are the hawks in such an apoplectic fit about this beheading?

Surely to use their own terminology this man is nothing but collateral damage.

Excuse me?..and just how is deliberately targetting an innocent man and knowingly hack at him THREE FRIGGIN TIMES TIL THE HEAD COMES OFF, and two more just for kicks equate to potential victims that were not intentionally targetted?

War is hell as the hawks insist on telling us.

That's actually a really good point, HW. We've been bombarded in the US by the hawk's mantra that it's going to be a long, hard slog in Iraq. We're told that it's going to get worse before it gets better (Rumsfeld even specifically said this about the abuse photos, which was ominous in the extreme). So, in order to maintain this line, how can the hawks now claim to be outraged about the killing of Nick Berg? Doesn't such an attitude sort of invalidate their own propoganda.

Very Well...if HW is correct in his assertion..and I have no real foundation to get all righteous bout Berg because.."War is hell" as you quote..then I'm all for doing away with any aspect of the Geneva Conventions, and sytematically terminate every terrorist in Abu Gharib prison..put them on their knees, take a rusty K-Bar combat knife and attempt to saw thrut their necks.

Unfortunately, we've seen no real evidence to claim that any of the detainees in Abu Gharib were actually "terrorists". Even our own (US military) sources put the number of innocent detainees at 60% while the International Red Cross puts the number at 90%.

As for abandoning the Geneva Convention, it looks like the US leaders have already done that. That's the amazing thing about laws, though, just because one person broke them, doesn't mean they don't apply when someone else breaks them. While the abuse at Abu Gharib, if factual, may constitute a major violation of the GC, so does the beheading of Nick Berg and they can both be punished under existing treaty.

Why are the hawks in such an apoplectic fit about this beheading?

Surely to use their own terminology this man is nothing but collateral damage.

Excuse me?..and just how is deliberately targetting an innocent man and knowingly hack at him THREE FRIGGIN TIMES TIL THE HEAD COMES OFF, and two more just for kicks equate to potential victims that were not intentionally targetted?

War is hell as the hawks insist on telling us.

That's actually a really good point, HW. We've been bombarded in the US by the hawk's mantra that it's going to be a long, hard slog in Iraq. We're told that it's going to get worse before it gets better (Rumsfeld even specifically said this about the abuse photos, which was ominous in the extreme). So, in order to maintain this line, how can the hawks now claim to be outraged about the killing of Nick Berg? Doesn't such an attitude sort of invalidate their own propoganda.

Very Well...if HW is correct in his assertion..and I have no real foundation to get all righteous bout Berg because.."War is hell" as you quote..then I'm all for doing away with any aspect of the Geneva Conventions, and sytematically terminate every terrorist in Abu Gharib prison..put them on their knees, take a rusty K-Bar combat knife and attempt to saw thrut their necks.

Unfortunately, we've seen no real evidence to claim that any of the detainees in Abu Gharib were actually "terrorists". Even our own (US military) sources put the number of innocent detainees at 60% while the International Red Cross puts the number at 90%.

As for abandoning the Geneva Convention, it looks like the US leaders have already done that. That's the amazing thing about laws, though, just because one person broke them, doesn't mean they don't apply when someone else breaks them. While the abuse at Abu Gharib, if factual, may constitute a major violation of the GC, so does the beheading of Nick Berg and they can both be punished under existing treaty.

yeah...like we're ever going to be able to convince the World to let us give them the death penalty even if we could accurately determine the murderers...because the DP is the only sentence Americans will be satisfied in reference to those who killed Berg. But in the meanwhile...our enemy STILL doesn't obey the Conventions...I am constantly confused over this issue...after the fact no one is going to want to try them, they want them dead...our soldiers aren't going in there to arrest them...but to terminate them....and I agree with that statement...try a major player perhaps but the average follower...I want him on his knees with a 9mm pressed to his forehead...since THEY see no need to obey the Conventions...and AGAIN my question has not been answered..Why should my side abide if my ENEMIES don't?

Why are the hawks in such an apoplectic fit about this beheading?

Surely to use their own terminology this man is nothing but collateral damage.

Excuse me?..and just how is deliberately targetting an innocent man and knowingly hack at him THREE FRIGGIN TIMES TIL THE HEAD COMES OFF, and two more just for kicks equate to potential victims that were not intentionally targetted?

Salishe - for someone who has a thread of their own going on about how US troops shouldn't have to follow the Geneva Conventions, and how in a war zone anything goes - it sure seems hypocritical for you to get your pantis in a bunch over this. If it was a US serviceman who did it - it seems that you would excuse them for it.

At least some of us have the consistancy to be offended by human rights abuses commited by ALL participants.

-Z-

Why are the hawks in such an apoplectic fit about this beheading?

Surely to use their own terminology this man is nothing but collateral damage.

Excuse me?..and just how is deliberately targetting an innocent man and knowingly hack at him THREE FRIGGIN TIMES TIL THE HEAD COMES OFF, and two more just for kicks equate to potential victims that were not intentionally targetted?

War is hell as the hawks insist on telling us.

That's actually a really good point, HW. We've been bombarded in the US by the hawk's mantra that it's going to be a long, hard slog in Iraq. We're told that it's going to get worse before it gets better (Rumsfeld even specifically said this about the abuse photos, which was ominous in the extreme). So, in order to maintain this line, how can the hawks now claim to be outraged about the killing of Nick Berg? Doesn't such an attitude sort of invalidate their own propoganda.

Very Well...if HW is correct in his assertion..and I have no real foundation to get all righteous bout Berg because.."War is hell" as you quote..then I'm all for doing away with any aspect of the Geneva Conventions, and sytematically terminate every terrorist in Abu Gharib prison..put them on their knees, take a rusty K-Bar combat knife and attempt to saw thrut their necks.

I'm merely making a political point.

We devalue life when we reduce people to "collateral damage." To deny them even the most basic respect of acknowledging they are fellow human beings.

They hack of someones head with the same callous disregard.

Intent is irrelevent. You've not said we've accidentally killed civilians and shown remorse for it. You've denied them their humanity, and shrugged it off with an easy catchphrase of "That's the reality of war."

I'm no good at flaming; I can't get anyone mad at me :(

I'm no good at flaming; I can't get anyone mad at me :(

Sends a little heat Collabs way.

But only coz you're my favourite NSer

I'm no good at flaming; I can't get anyone mad at me :(

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwww......

I'm sorry.... I'll try and remember to hate you a bit more....

Well...goodness...I concur....poor Collab..ok..kiddo..hit me with your best flame...I'm prepping myself to get all righteous and indignant....ok..just give me a sec to catch my breath..okkkkkk....GO!