How many of you had the nerve?

[TIS]

How many of you had the nerve to watch and listen to the murder of Nick Berg last week? I raise this question because I've just read the thread on "Welcome to Bushland." No matter what you think the right side of the argument is, the murder of Nick Berg and our willingness to forget illustrates that we STILL just don't get it.

It is astonishing that his murder, easily the best evidence offered to date, that 9/11 was just the opening volley in a war whose bitterness will not be measured against any modern comparator, is merely a distant and fading memory in the public arena. The pace with which the single most publicly and graphically rendered human dismemberment in modern history has faded into obscurity, if a truly accurate indicator of the public mood, is stunning!

Or is it?

The press refers to Mr. Berg's horrific death as an "execution," but that word is a misnomer for what the grainy video actually portrays. The term execution implies legitimacy in our society and the press knows it. We execute our most heinous criminals, usually because they have perpetrated the crime of murder against their victims. The distinction between the two words is clear in this context and the intent of the liberal media equally so.

So bent on inspiring American self-loathing are those who "faithfully" report to us what we should believe, that the crimes of just seven soldiers, on one shift, in one cell block, of one POW facility, IN A WAR ZONE, are reported to us as if they are grounds for Nuremburg II – all to the exclusion of the real story we had all better be taking notice of. All we hear of the Berg story, just one week later, is that a bereaved father blames the American president for his dead son’s poor decision making.

Let’s be clear. In this country people who dismember other people are usually SERIAL KILLERS. If caught, these people stand a reasonable chance of getting off by claiming insanity – they didn’t know that what they were doing was wrong at the time.

The murderers of Nick Berg make no such claim. In fact, they assert the exact opposite – that his death, which they have arranged for us to witness in sight and sound, is RIGHT and just. They tell us that they exact retribution for prisoner abuses.

But we must make no mistake, Zarqawi would have traded in a heartbeat the detonator switch for a small battlefield nuke smuggled out of Russia, or for a truckload of sarin gas munitions parked on Constitution Avenue in Washington D.C. for the knife he drew against Nick Berg. Mr. Berg was just a vehicle through whom he could impose his own disgusting brand of shock therapy on us. We are fortunate that the vehement insanity of his goals is confined by the borders of Iraq – for now.

In this video we catch a glimpse of what is intended for all of us – if any opportunity arises. It is intended not because we are infidels, nor merely because we are American, but because those who would perpetrate limitless horrors against us are basically a collection of psychotics who have found in each other a means to carry out their uncivilized fantasies under a veil of political correctness bestowed upon them by our own media.

If you haven’t seen the murder of Nick Berg you haven’t seen the dividing line between life and death, between society and anarchy –

Between US and THEM

TIS

 

[avbug]

There is nothing new under the sun.

Nick Berg would be dead with or without all the media hype of so-called prison "abuses." Any correlation between his death and the prison hype is coincidental.

Terrorism is not new. It's just been pushed onto the front burner.

Most other nations have been dealing with this for years. As a people in this country, we're sheltered, and soft. That's all.

If you haven’t seen the murder of Nick Berg you haven’t seen the dividing line between life and death, between society and anarchy –

Perhaps you haven't. I have. With or without witness to that singular video clip, there's plenty of horror in the world to go around. We distress over the toll taken at the twin towers, but more than that die daily in some countries just of hunger, while we load up on steak and gas in our SUV's. What you see as horror is but a drop in the bucket outside our sheltered borders.

Wake up, folks.

 

[Timebuilder]

The world we currently occupy is built upon life and death, and all the reasons we find for those states of being.

What brings death is a matter of interest. Death from honor and service, or death from an evil belief. Death from hunger and disease, or following a life well lived. There are all kinds and manner of death.

Perhaps the most important idea, though, is the reason you live. Why do we do what we do? To oppress, or to free? To help, or to hinder? To lead, or to mislead? To glorify God, or to glorify the desires of the self?

By any standard, Nick berg's murder was an act of criminal brutality. Not an execution, but a murder. Not in any way a legitimate act.

Self loathing? Yes. The press thrives on it. This loathing is increasingly localized in some quarters, to the point of becoming the "usual suspects." The suspects that hate their own origin, their own beliefs, their own country, their own freedom. In a lemming-like run to the cliff's edge to assuage their guilt, these self-appointed monitors of the page and the image are blissfully unaware of their complicity with evil.

Sometimes evil is difficult to identify. Not this time.

 

[jarhead]

Avbug,

I am struck by something I find peculiar in the way you phrase certain things in your last post on this thread. What I am curious about, is why you use to modifying word(s) “so-called” in front of your reference to the Abu Ghriab prisoner abuses. Is that intended to imply that there were no abuses in there, and the courts martial are a publicity stunt?

You could have just as well referred to the “toll taken at the twin towers” with the same modifier, and stated it was a “so-called” toll. Neither makes any sense, and in both cases, it is, or would be inappropriate, with the intent to diminish what actually DID take place. Abu Ghriab was not a fraternity hazing stunt.

 

[flyifrvfr]

I have said this before, the murderers used the prison photos as an excuse to execute Nick Berg. There were executions of American citizens and American Soldiers in this war long before prison photos were released. I still blame the media and the five cowards for Nick Bergs execution.

The cowards used this as an excuse, but had no intentions of releasing Nick Berg reguardless of thier demands. They fully intended to send a message that any American captured in Iraq will be executed. The media served me no purpose showing me the prison photos. This also means there is information leak that needs to be addressed. The media somehow got thier greedy little hands on the photos and this leak puts our country at greater risk.

I hope I'm wrong, but I can't come up with any other explanation on how they got the photos.

 

[jarhead]

flyifrvfr

The media that first received the video of Nick Berg’s murder was Al Jeezera. Once the genie is out of the bottle, you can’t put it back in. We live in an electronic and digital age, and there is no turning back from that reality. Once Al-Jeezera released the video of the murder, it was all over the world, in every electronic and print media.

I disagree with your assertion that you “blame the media and the five cowards for Nick Berg’s execution.” The five cowards are to blame…..the media murdered nobody.

I watched the Assistant Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Marine general Pete Pace, talking some cadets. In response to a female cadet’s inaudible question about electronic and digital cameras such as in use at Abu Ghriab, General Pace replied.
He told the group, “If you don’t want to be photographed doing dumb and stupid things, then don’t DO dumb and stupid things”. That brought a reply from Don Rumsfeld to the assembly of cadets, “That’s why he’s wearing 4 stars”

 

[Vector4fun]

To answer your question directly TIS, I did not watch, nor seek to watch the complete video of Mr. Berg's murder.

I feel a great deal of sympathy for Mr. Berg's family. I do not have a huge amount of sympathy for Mr. Berg himself. Mr. Berg was a practicing Jew who traveled on his own dime and free will to a country populated with persons hostile to Jews. He was stopped, questioned, and Strongly advised by American personnel to Leave Iraq. He chose to stay and put his own life in danger for money. I feel about the same amount of sympathy for Mr. Berg as I would feel for a pilot who slammed into a mountain while scud-running after being told "VFR not recommended".

I would feel a great deal differently about Mr. Berg had he been in Iraq because he was ordered to go as a member of the military, or if his employer had ordered him to go, or even if he had gone to Iraq for humanitarian reasons. My understanding is, he went on his own for money. I must assume he knew the risks and took them voluntarily.

TIS, you could make a lot of compelling arguements about terrorism that I may agree with. But Mr. Berg is not your best poster child.

 

[avbug]

I suppose by that logic, then, I will get what I deserve if I get killed over a fire. After all, it's a dangerous environment, and I get paid to do it. I could refuse to fly over a fire, but I don't. Therefore, because I do it for money, anything that befalls me is my own fault, and I deserve it? Come on.

As for the so-called prison abuses, let's step back a minute. The president is a filthy fool for failing to support his troops. He's also a pawn, saying what he thinks he must as a political figurehead. He's no leader. He should be supporting his troops in their actions.

Abuse? Try interrogation under combat conditions. Try standard operating proceedures. The touchy feely crowd can't seem to grasp that war isn't pretty; it's dirty, it's gritty, it's tough. We don't interrogate prisoners in nice clean rooms over a cup of coffee and a cigarette. We do what we must to obtain the information we need.

Do I believe that stripping a prisoner naked is abuse, in a world where the prisoner's compatriots are making daily suicide runs on our own troops? Nope. When the prisoner has strict moral standards that bring him to the precipice of humiliation for being seen without clothes, especially by a woman, it's a psychological technique used to belittle and bring down the man mentally, such that he becomes vulnerable to provide information.

For that matter, when a suspect in that prison has information that may save lives and won't give it up, I have little problem using battery leads on testicles to prevent a single suicide bombing or another Khobar towers or twin towers. Not a bit of hesitation, either.

Abuse? No. Interrogation that was grabbed by a liberal media hungry to run a story. Are the current court martials a farce? Yes. It's a witch hunt, with those being court martialed suffering as scape goats in order to protect the "integrity" of the DoD and the career brass who don't have the brass to back up their troops.

We do worse to our own people as routine handling during SERE (and other) training. Surely you know about that? We do worse to our own people...and that's not abuse. It's preparing them for reality in less than ideal conditions.

The media sees a tattered peasant who was compelled to serve under evil Saddam, suffering needlessly in prison when all he wants to do is go home to his family. Oh really? Military Intelligence isn't interrogating joe blow; military intelligence is handling figures with standing; players who have information to provide. Feel moved by the sob stories doled out by those who have been "liberated" or released from the prison? You gotta be kidding.

Now, due to the lemming-like public pressure to make all this go away, prisoners are being released back into the public domain. Without a doubt, certain of these will be back at a guard post, or approaching a convoy, with a bomb strapped about their waist or a trunk full of explosives. And in small part, you'll be responible, as the whining liberal that thought it was all an inhuman abuse scandal.

You're preaching to the wrong choir, here. If one of my own children were in jeopardy or missing, I would put bullets in the leg of a suspect, or cut or shock or beat that suspect until there was no more blood to leak, or until I had the information I needed, without any hesitation or reservation. I would remove one eye and pop it with pliers in front of the perps remaining bad eye so the horror could rest on his decision to comply, and would lose no sleep.

In the military, every soldier is a brother, every one is one of the children. When one is in jeopardy or harms way, all are in harms way. We're not seeing eyes gouged out, arms cut off, or limbs being selectively shattered by close quarters gun-shots. We're not seeing someone strapped to a metal mattress frame and shocked over the course of eighteen hours, or victims with their hands tied behind them, lifted from behind by their wrists, suspeneded from the ceiling repeatedly until they pass out from the pain. All these things have been endured by our own troops when suffering as POW's in various fields of conflict, but are far from techniques that we use on our own prisoners.

Abuses? So-called abuses. Wake up; open your eyes. Step outside our borders, and stop believing everything you read in the paper or see on TV. Abuse? Garbage. Bull**CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**.

I see these court martials as a travesty; a failure on our own self-serviing political leadership to show the backbone to do their job; support and back their troops in doing their job. With all the negative publicity the idiotic media has thrown up, officers and even the cowardly president has decided to save their own pathetic skin by abandoning their troops and decrying them.

I see no abuse. I see a scandal involving injustice toward our own troops and a failing of their leaders to do their jobs and protect them. Were I in that prison, I would likely have done far worse. And between you and I, when I tell you that face to face, I can relax, and smile.

 

[N2264J]

Sometimes evil is difficult to identify. Not this time.

What did you guys expect going to war? Innocent by standers
get killed all the time by both sides. Perhaps you are horrified
because the Iraqis are no longer greeting us with flowers and cheering. The Bush administration is suppose to turn the keys over to Iraq in five weeks and they don't have a clue who it's going to be.

The Red Cross is reporting that 70 to 90% of all detainees in Iraq are innocent. Some of them have been turning up dead from their "questioning." Were the dead ones terroist insurgents or just hapless targets of opportunity? Hardly a Skull and Bones intitation. This will have the effect of aiding bin Laden in his recruitment of terroists to wage war on the US and its interests.

The demarcation line between good and evil usually gets real blurry in a war.

=================================

Red Cross Report Describes Systemic Abuse in Iraq

By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 10, 2004; 4:12 PM


U.S. forces in Iraq often arrested Iraqis without good reason, routinely used excessive force in the early hours of captivity and abused some prisoners for months to extract information from them, the International Committee of the Red Cross told the Bush administration earlier this year.

The treatment of prisoners who were considered valuable intelligence sources or were suspected in attacks against U.S. forces was sometimes "tantamount to torture," the Geneva-based organization wrote in a February report made public today.

Military intelligence officers told Red Cross monitors that 70 to 90 percent of captives in Iraq last year had been arrested by mistake, the report stated. Some Iraqi families roamed the country for weeks trying to uncover the fate of their imprisoned relatives, who had disappeared into the military detention apparatus.

The Red Cross, which sent investigators to 14 detention centers run by the U.S.-led coalition, also documented eight cases in which Iraqi inmates were shot by American guards between April and November 2003. Seven prisoners died and 18 were injured.

 

[CLCAP]

I guess the red cross must be run by the american liberal media...oh and all other media in the world too - they too can not see the truth for what it is....only FOX can!! They are the only news outlet in the entire world that speaks the truth. I you guys REALLY want to see what people down there think - just read Al Jazeera - that will make CNN look less "liberal"

 

[pilotman2105]

I guess the red cross must be run by the american liberal media...oh and all other media in the world too - they too can not see the truth for what it is....only FOX can!! They are the only news outlet in the entire world that speaks the truth. I you guys REALLY want to see what people down there think - just read Al Jazeera - that will make CNN look less "liberal"

Al Jazeera aside, the media reports what will get attention, not necessarily the unbiased truth. Marketing plays a role in getting someone to buy a newspaper or watch their channel over someone elses. This includes Fox as well.

More often than not, to figure out what is going on, you either have to be their yourself or piece-meal things together from various sources.

 

[jarhead]

pilotman2105

What you seem to be suggesting, is that there is no source ever, for news to be unbiased. You feel the networks, magazines, newspapers, and politicians all have a hidden agenda? Where would you suggest one get the "true" unbiased news then?

I realize that many newscasters and print journalists have the ability, and sometimes do, put their own unique spin on some stories. However, when I watch the generals, the congressional leaders, and the administration officials interviewed live, or eye witnesses to events interviewed live, with photographic documentation, I am usually able to rid the bias and filters put to stories, with my own good (or sometimes bad) judgement. I don't think we can ever find some all seeing Solomon that sees the news as an unvarnished raw truth. The media is not always "liberal". I also see "conservative" slants, and often, I see just raw facts from which you and I can draw conclusions. Often, our conclusions will differ from seeing the same train wreck; other times we will reach the same conclusions. Labels such as "liberal" and "conservative", are usually just a convenience for ones particular form of biased denial to facts that do not support our own agenda.

 

[pilotman2105]

Re: pilotman2105

What you seem to be suggesting, is that there is no source ever, for news to be unbiased. You feel the networks, magazines, newspapers, and politicians all have a hidden agenda?

Of course they all have a hidden agenda. The "better-ment" of themselves or their company. These places are run by businesses. Businesses exist to make money.

Where would you suggest one get the "true" unbiased news then?

You don't.

I realize that many newscasters and print journalists have the ability, and sometimes do, put their own unique spin on some stories. However, when I watch the generals, the congressional leaders, and the administration officials interviewed live, or eye witnesses to events interviewed live, with photographic documentation, I am usually able to rid the bias and filters put to stories, with my own good (or sometimes bad) judgement. I don't think we can ever find some all seeing Solomon that sees the news as an unvarnished raw truth. The media is not always "liberal". I also see "conservative" slants, and often, I see just raw facts from which you and I can draw conclusions. Often, our conclusions will differ from seeing the same train wreck; other times we will reach the same conclusions. Labels such as "liberal" and "conservative", are usually just a convenience for ones particular form of biased denial to facts that do not support our own agenda.

The media promotes it's own agenda by selectively showing interviews and editing out parts of an interview that sometimes change the entire context. You can't tell me that you possibly view/hear all interviews from everyone about every subject that you're interested in. The media will examine all the content they have on a subject, and use what content will best suit their ultimate goal of increasing viewership.

One example of this is the local newspaper. Quite a few months ago, front page headline to the effect of "Interracial couples house burns; Arson suspected." After digging through the article, there was one sentence along the lines of "The fire marshall has not ruled out arson." There was a huge outcry in town and even a donation fund set up through a local bank to help these poor victims get back on their feet. About a week later, on page A-10 on a side column, one-paragraph article the actual cause of the fire was listed as some malfunctioning appliance. This is a prime example of sensational journalism. It caught the readers attention, so let's run with it.

The media can also change the context of interviews and facts from what the source orginally intended. This has happened to friends, family, and myself. I had a newspaper interview me at work and to put it simply, they took what they wanted out of what I said, re-arragned it, edited it, and made it into what they wanted.

All I'm saying is not to believe something simply because it comes from "the media." CNN, CBS, FOX, ABC, etc. are all ultimately run by businesses. Keep this in mind next time you see a headline about the poor Iraqi prisoners. Are you really getting the full truth? Why have we not hyped up the Berg murder? The media could be interviewing the family, friends, relatives, teachers, next-door neighbors, towns-people, etc., but they aren't. Instead, their pushing the prisoner abuse. Why? I don't know.

I guess that I've just learned to take everything that I read in the media with a grain of salt. Whether one media source is better than another is a matter of personal opinion.

 

[Dubya]

Media not biased?

jarhead....the media is so into itself it isn't even remotely questionable. You can go on being disillusioned by their obnoxious leanings.

Denial....it's not just a river in Africa.

W

 

[jarhead]

Pilotman2105

I agree with much of what you have stated, but not all of it. I too, have been interviewed by reporters, and when I saw it in print, I would not have known it was me, by the errors of omission and commission. Incompetence, or an agenda.....I dunno, but it was not what I said.

Also, we need to take lots of grains of salt when listening to the "analysis" of the news by such folks as Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Alan Combs, Rush Limbaugh, Joe Scarborough, Paul Begalla, et.al. They are not newscasters. They are commentators, who are paid to opine, and give their analysis. I really don't need their analysis. I want facts, and then I'll form my own "analysis".

Now, that said, when I watch gavel to gavel coverage, live without interruption by any media type, I am getting facts from the newsmakers themselves. After the Senate Armed Services hearings concluded, the paid analysts were out in force, telling me what they thought. I did not need it, as I was able to form my independent analysis of what I'd seen and heard in that senate hearing.

 

[bart]

I wonder how many senators, news anchors and "so-called" journalists are losing sleep over the fraternity hazings that take place daily on American campuses, or the hazing of military personnel in the elite training schools. I really think we should pay attention to that. Innocent people are being humiliated and scarred for life.

We need to put a stop to it now. Otherwise we should impeach the president, get rid of the secdef and lock up all the college presidents and faculty advisers, not to mention the perpetrators of such antics.

 

[jarhead]

Dubya

How are you able to form any opinions at all, ever? Please tell me. I know you can't be there, at every event that takes place all over the globe to make first hand judgements. I would venture to say you form your opinions while using support from those sources that support your personal views, and deny all reports that differ from your own preconceived version of the truth. If it supports you, it is not biased, but if it contradicts you, it is biased? Am I far off the mark there? Again, if not from media, where do you get information from which to form your opinions?

 

[pilotman2105]

Re: Pilotman2105

Now, that said, when I watch gavel to gavel coverage, live without interruption by any media type, I am getting facts from the newsmakers themselves. After the Senate Armed Services hearings concluded, the paid analysts were out in force, telling me what they thought. I did not need it, as I was able to form my independent analysis of what I'd seen and heard in that senate hearing.

But that in itself is biased. Why are they showing that particular hearing and not another? Why are they showing hearings on that subject as opposed to another. What makes that more important than say a murder in NYC?

Simply because you see a hearing start to finish does not make you an englightened individual on the subject. There are so many factors other than simply the legal aspect.

 

[jarhead]

Hey Bart!

Stupid Hurts!

 

[jarhead]

Pilotman2105

I'm going to give you that one. I would guess that the Senate hearings on someone being pick-pocketed at a football game in Kansas City, no doubt would draw little attention from the masses, or congress. None-the-less, it was an important event to the victim of the pick-pocket. That's just reality.

Cats that don't get stuck in trees, don't make news headlines.