CAIRO, Egypt - A video posted Tuesday on an Islamic militant Web site showed the beheading of an American civilian in Iraq (news - web sites), and said the execution was carried out by an al-Qaida affiliated group to avenge the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers.
The video showed five men wearing headscarves and black ski masks, standing over a bound man in an orange jumpsuit � similar to a prisoner's uniform � who identified himself as Nick Berg, a U.S. contractor whose body was found on a highway overpass in Baghdad on Saturday.
"My name is Nick Berg, my father's name is Michael, my mother's name is Susan," the man said on the video. "I have a brother and sister, David and Sarah. I live in ... Philadelphia."
After reading a statement, the men were seen pulling the man to his side and putting a large knife to his neck. A scream sounded as the men cut his head off, shouting "Allahu Akbar!" � "God is great." They then held the head out before the camera.
Berg's family said Tuesday they knew their son had been decapitated, but didn't know the details of the killing. When told of the video by an Associated Press reporter, Berg's father, Michael, and his two siblings hugged and cried.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Dont think for a minute that these bastards would'nt have done the exact same thing without the prison debacle.
They would've just used another excuse to act like the savages so many believe all arabs to be.
sickening.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Dont think for a minute that these bastards would'nt have done the exact same thing without the prison debacle.
We'd all like to think that, but we can never be sure. They said they'd kill Thomas Hamill in 12 hours, but they kept him alive for 3 weeks. Who knows. Perhaps the abuse DID cause this man to be killed, or perhaps these sick fuckos would have done it anyway.
Bush and the compliant news media will no doubt publicize this to the skies to distract attention from the ongoing prison furor.
The administration will use this atrocity as a justification for increasing the tempo of military operations in Iraq and cracking down hard.
Some right-wing commentators will scream that the torture of Iraqi prisoners was justified in light of this murder.
As this article notes, many people have been conditioned by a number of factors to percieve Arabs as villians for a long time; how many Hollywood movies protray Arabs in a totally negative light?
-------------------- The best way to predict the future is to create it.
Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
Indeed there are many, "True Lies" being my favorite nominee in that group. And "Cannonball Run". "Ah! Too much cous-cous!!"
But I thought "The Siege" managed to keep the debate very clean, with Tony Shalhoub as a counterweight muslim to the antagonists of the movie, used very wisely as a lesson to the west that "there are other muslims than the fanatics".
As a palestinian, Shalhoub's character got in a few good licks in on the israelis' persecution of them in Israel (the civilian palestinians, that is).
The movie also showed, through outright critique by General Deveraux (Willis) that the army was a blunt instrument where precision attacks by antiterrorist special forces was required.
Considering that this movie was made three years prior to 9/11, I think it is a brilliant entry in the debate, it received far to little accolade.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Nim the Fanciful: But I thought "The Siege" managed to keep the debate very clean, with Tony Shalhoub as a counterweight muslim to the antagonists of the movie, used very wisely as a lesson to the west that "there are other muslims than the fanatics".
As a palestinian, Shalhoub's character got in a few good licks in on the israelis' persecution of them in Israel (the civilian palestinians, that is).
The movie also showed, through outright critique by General Deveraux (Willis) that the army was a blunt instrument where precision attacks by antiterrorist special forces was required.
Considering that this movie was made three years prior to 9/11, I think it is a brilliant entry in the debate, it received far to little accolade.
Good point, Nim...I am rather suprised no one has brought this movie up in the context of current events. The problem here is that our current military strategy is simply not designed for fighting terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda. THe majority of our military doctrine, strategy and tactics is still geared toward a third world war, with huge conventional battles.
As this article notes, the current administration's so called "War on Terror" (a meaningless phrase, since you cannot wage war on emotions or states of mind) has ended up hurting us more than helping us. Overwhelming force is meaningless in this context of war because using such force ends up too often backfiring on its user (The Vietnam War has several notable examples of this). The best way to wage such war is not simply by military force or intelligence work; it must also include a political strategy that has awareness of what fuels support for these terrorist units. For many Arabs, for example, a lot of their hatred for the US comes from several factors:
Our unqualified support for Israeli policies, even if they violate UN resolutions.
Our support of what they consider corrupt, tyrannical regimes.
Our stationing troops in the Mideast, especially Saudi Arabia.
Any strategy to deal with Al-Qadea must address these issues at some point, for it is the resentment that they fuel that drive Arabs and other Muslims to support such groups.
Bush's show of support for Rumsfeld in the wake of the furor over the release of the Abu Ghazi report, for example is considered by many Arabs as an implicit show of support for the US Military's way of runnning those prisons.
This is something that a number of US Army and Marine Corps officers are addressing: they are discussing the evolution of what they are calling "Fourth Generation Warfare." Such discussions are meant to discern how war may be waged in the future.
-------------------- The best way to predict the future is to create it.
Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
Remember what I said earlier about Bush and his supporters using the beheading of Nick Berg as a means of drowning the furor over the torutre of Iraqi prisoners? Well, this article shows some of the backlash by Bush's supporters on this issues.
What galls me are these idiots who keep ranting on about how releasing these these photos was unpatriotic and how leaking the report made us look bad. To those folks I say that this was exactly the kind of thing we were supposed to be stopping by removing Hussien remember? They also forget that classifying reports to hide illegal activities is a crime in and of itself.
WARNING: RANT MODE ENGAGED.What really turns my stomach though is how both supporters and critics are treating this whole thing in terms of how it affects America's image rather than as a human rights issue...to which I say "GET A CLUE, YOU FUCKING MORONS!!!"
If those clueless Washington pundits would get out of that wilderness of funhouse mirrors called Washington D.C. and step out into the real world, they'd maybe realize its not about image, its about the fact that this is an adminiistration systematcially encouraging a climate of lawlessness and contempt while inflaming the very terrorism it says its supposed to be fighting.
If those people had any sense, they'd declare victory and get those troops out of there NOW. After all, in a way we did accomplish what we set out to do, so why keep them there?
RANT MODE DISENGAGED
-------------------- The best way to predict the future is to create it.
Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
Man, do you read any other site for news besides that "Common Dreams" stuff?
Another viewpoint is occasionally enlightening.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
"Common Dreams" is carefully edited to avoid such things, as they cause cognitive dissonance.
quote:For many Arabs, for example, a lot of their hatred for the US comes from several factors: Our unqualified support for Israeli policies, even if they violate UN resolutions.
Translation: We stubbornly refuse to let them kill all the Jews, or put Israel in a position which would make it easier for them to drive the Jews into the sea.
quote:Our support of what they consider corrupt, tyrannical regimes.
Rather than their preferred style of corrupt, tyrannical regimes, like the Taliban and the Iranian Fundie-psychos.
quote: Our stationing troops in the Mideast, especially Saudi Arabia.
Especially when invited.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
"Translation: We stubbornly refuse to let them kill all the Jews, or put Israel in a position which would make it easier for them to drive the Jews into the sea."
Oh, please. Israel could kill off every last Palestinian in the Levant, and we'd still oppose so much as a UN resolution calling them "naughty".
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: "Common Dreams" is carefully edited to avoid such things, as they cause cognitive dissonance.
I'm sure all the various publications from which they draw articles appreciate that characterization..which IMHO applies more to this invasion anyway.
quote:Translation: We stubbornly refuse to let them kill all the Jews, or put Israel in a position which would make it easier for them to drive the Jews into the sea.
Your translaotion, First of Two. I fully believe that Israle has every right to exist and is in many ways an admirable nation deserving of US support; US support however shoudl not mean turing a blind eye to policies like building illegal settlements or walls in defiance of UN Resoulutions. Also keep in mind we ship them billions in foriegn aid.
quote:Rather than their preferred style of corrupt, tyrannical regimes, like the Taliban and the Iranian Fundie-psychos.
You mihgt want to recall that we created and funded the groups that became the Taliban and Al-Qaeda to fight Soviet occupation of their country. As for the Iranian fundamentalists, they gained support because we propped up a corrupt, brutal ruler in the Shah of Iran and failed to realize the danger until it was too late. Interestingly, there is a growing opposition movement to the Iranian fundamentalist government in the country.
Lastly, this is not the first time we invaded Iraq; we did a similar action 40 years ago to install the Ba'athists in the first place. We also supported Saddam for a long time against Iraq.
quote:Especially when invited.
Invited by a government that has close financial ties to the Bush family and runs a very undemocratic regime in its own right. A government BTW some of whose members may have financed some of the 9-11 suidcide bombers and Al-Qaeda.
-------------------- The best way to predict the future is to create it.
Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
"We also supported Saddam for a long time against Iraq."
Iran, you mean.
And, indeed, there is an effort there to overcome the ayatollahs and the theocracy. But does Bush get together with Khatami or whoever and try to work out a way to strengthen the secular (albeit loosely so, as anything over there) part of the government? No. Because, in Bush's mind, countries are either "good" or "evil". And he's already explicitly stated that he thinks Iran is "evil".
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by TSN: And, indeed, there is an effort there to overcome the ayatollahs and the theocracy. But does Bush get together with Khatami or whoever and try to work out a way to strengthen the secular (albeit loosely so, as anything over there) part of the government? No. Because, in Bush's mind, countries are either "good" or "evil". And he's already explicitly stated that he thinks Iran is "evil".
Which to me shows the fallacy of such a worldview. TReating a country as a monolithic whole strikes me as simpleminded. If our government had any sense, we would be establishing communications with the moderates over there and giving support to them. Such a policy would be more effective in dealing with radical governments than brute force.
-------------------- The best way to predict the future is to create it.
Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Highway Hoss: If our government had any sense, we would be establishing communications with the moderates over there and giving support to them. Such a policy would be more effective in dealing with radical governments than brute force.
Hm.. what makes you think that we're not doing that, besides the fact that you won't find info about it on the commondreams website?
Have you forgotten the events after the quake in Bam?
And what makes you think that our support for Iranian moderates won't be (or even isn't already) portrayed as just more US meddling?
I too, would like to see the Iranian people overthrow the hard-liners. But the result of that aid inevitably being traced back to US influence, well... I don't see how that'd breed any less Bin Ladens than any other events.
Especially if, as you say, governments with close ties to the US are what enrages terrorists.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
"I don't see how that'd breed any less Bin Ladens than any other events."
Well, first of all, it's "fewer", my dear English major. I hate when people confuse "fewer" and "less".
Now, to the point. "Interference" in Iran may indeed piss off terrorists. (Honestly, I don't know what bin Laden thinks of Iran. On one hand, it's a Muslim government, which he likes. On the other hand, it's Shi'a, which I believe he doesn't like.) But no-one said we should refrain from doing every single thing that might irritate some extremist somewhere. We shouldn't just sever all ties and start pretending the Mid-East doesn't exist. But we should start going about things the right way. Invasions, sanctions that only hurt the regular people, calling countries "evil", and unquestioning support of Israel in everything are not the right way. We need to be diplomatic. And if that still makes a few wackos want us all dead, fine. There'd be no pleasing them, anyway. But at least we'd know we didn't deserve it in any way.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic