Beheaded American Citizen

[Mimi]

I know Lazarus began a thread relating to this story, in regards to viewing the actual video itself, but I decided to start a new thread with the actual story included, for any members who may not have heard about this atrocious act yet.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


(CNN) -- Video posted on an al Qaeda-linked Web site of the beheading of a U.S. civilian in Iraq has prompted outrage -- but some support -- around the world.

The film showed Nick Berg, a freelance communications worker from Pennsylvania, speaking briefly before being beheaded by his masked captors.

The Web site said the killing was carried out by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a top ally of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Images from the tape showing Berg and his captors dominated TV broadcasts and newspapers around the world on Tuesday and Wednesday, prompting condemnation from most world leaders.

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair described the killing as "a truly barbaric act" while White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the United States would vigorously pursue those who carried out the killing.

McClellan said the videotape showed "the true nature of the enemies of freedom. They have no regard for the lives of innocent men, women and children." (U.S. reaction)

One Kuwaiti newspaper used a picture of one of the killers holding the severed head and some Greek TV stations showed the execution, Reuters reported. Much of the world's media only showed images of Berg before his execution.

Arab media reacted cautiously to the killing, with some newspapers playing it down, according to Reuters. But one Baghdad citizen, Adel Karim, told CNN: "If they are Muslims, the messenger of Allah, Mohammed, says, 'Don't kill, even sick dogs.'"

Another man from Baghdad, Atef Jassem, added: "Musab is a terrorist and all of the resistance is coming from outside Iraq, like Syria and other parts of the world."

But some in Afghanistan defended the murder, blaming the United States for starting a cycle of violence following the coalition invasion of Iraq.

Jabar Khan, a Kabul shopkeeper, said: "This beheading is a good act because the Iraqis have been oppressed and whoever is oppressed should defend themselves. As a Muslim I support this act."

There was also some measured sympathy in the most populous Muslim nation in the world, Indonesia.

In Jakarta, one resident, Budi, said: "Even hostages, under the teachings of Islam, must be treated humanely. If others did otherwise, it doesn't mean we should do the same.

"But then under the current conditions ... such chaos in Iraq ... we cannot blame the Iraqis whose lives have been totally destroyed."

In Japan -- as well as other parts of non-Muslim Asia -- Berg's murder was widely condemned.

In Tokyo, Norio Kato expressed sympathy for the United States' predicament in Iraq.

"I think the situation will become more of a quagmire, but if you think about world peace it's necessary for us to be there. I mean the Iraqis had that horrible president, didn't they?"

In Britain, some leading politicians said the execution highlighted the threat to coalition soldiers in the wake of allegations of abuse made against U.S. and British troops.

One of the masked men in the video read a statement saying the beheading was revenge for the "Satanic degradation" of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers.

Menzies Campbell, foreign affairs spokesman for the opposition Liberal Democrats, said on Wednesday: "This is an act of undiluted barbarism which will fill every civilized person with horror.

"It only serves to emphasize just how dangerous Iraq has become for coalition forces, including the British."

Iranian radio accused western media of using the images for propaganda purposes. "As a result the issue of Iraqi prisoners' torture has been totally ignored by these media," the Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran said.

Spokesman Leigh Daynes told the UK Press Association: "The rules of war, of which the Red Cross is the guardian, apply to all belligerents in times of armed conflict, and we would expect the rules of war to be observed at all times.

"This extends to the protection of innocent civilians caught up in conflict."

Iraqi Human Rights Minister Bakhtiar Amin said Iraq would do everything within its power to bring Berg's killers to justice.

"Those psychopaths who committed this immoral crime should be brought before justice very rapidly and get their deserved punishment," Amin said.

Edward Rendell, governor of Berg's home state Pennsylvania, said he was appalled at "the horrific and inhumane way" the 26-year-old had been killed.

"The captors of Nick Berg who perpetrated this atrocity misread the American people," he said.

"If they think that acts like this will cause the American people to decide that the time to cut and run has come, they will find that the American people will have their resolve strengthened by atrocities like this."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Is this really the majority consensus on this vile act of violence? You hurt us so we're gonna hurt you back? Don't get me wrong...I am sickened and outraged by those executors lack of regard for human life. But is fighting fire with fire the answer? We all know that any attempt to avenge this disgusting act is going to result in more similar crimes being committed against U.S. soldiers and civilians. How many lives have to be lost at the cost of revenge before we decide enough is enough?

It appears that the government has already made the decision on behalf of american citizens to send more troops and increase our war efforts against the middle east. But I for one do not know if I am comfortable with that decision. I mean, if we were guaranteed that they could go in and find the cold hearted bastards responsible for this and remove them before any similar acts could be performed, fine. But we know that will not be the case. If even one or two of them could be tracked down, it would be nothing short of a miracle. And even if that happens, more insurgents are going to step up to take their place. It's a never ending battle that will never be won, by any parties involved. At what point do we finally decide that human life is more valuble than revenge?

I know I am in the minority concerning my views on this issue. At a time when I should be outraged and foaming at the mouth with a craving for justice, I am, instead, taking the road of fear and concern for all americans caught in this battle. I don't want to see any more lives lost, especially not as visciously and savagely as this one, for the sake of avenging a crime that will continue throughout time no matter what steps we take. There is no victory, only loss. And I for one feel the losses far outnumber the satisfaction a little revenge may bring.

Mimi

[tommytikl]

The real shame is that Berg was trying to help the country, yes he was there as a contractor but he had a real concern for them and was doing very good work with cell phone towers in Iraq.
I heard this news this morning on a radio station in Philly, they were talking to a "family friend".

[gila67]

:mad:

[Sadistictickler]

I have merely 1 thing to say:

eye for an eye

sad for the guy, but even as a non-muslim don't condemn the act. Hate me for it, I don't care, it's just the way I feel about it.

[leafstk]

Originally posted by Sadistictickler
I have merely 1 thing to say:

eye for an eye

sad for the guy, but even as a non-muslim don't condemn the act. Hate me for it, I don't care, it's just the way I feel about it.

I feel sorry for you.... how on earth can you condone such horrific savagery? What those U.S. soldiers were doing at that Iraqi prison was dead wrong, but any comparison to sawing off a man's head while he's still alive is beyond comprehension. It is indefensible.

[BOFH666]

One thing that I'd like to add to the above account is that the father of the murdered man indirectly blames the US for his son's death:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3705409.stm

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.


As to the question, I honestly don't believe you're in the minority on this, just that the revenge camp are speaking loudest right now. It's sad though that yet again no lesson is learnt from so many deaths, specificaly the recent conflict in Falluja. That too was an act of revenge and it led to a very public defeat for the US forces in Iraq once over 600 civilians had lost their lives. Now I'm sure we'll see something along the same lines in the next few days and sadly I believe the results will be much the same.

One other thing: "The true nature of the enemies of Freedom!" - isn't there anything that can be done to stop this kind of nonsense spewing from the current US administration? It is designed purely to play on the blind patriotism that seems, at times, to fuel the country and is as dispicable an act in my view as those that use Islam as a motivational tool for such atrocities as this. Has the US Government already forgotten that one man was beaten to death in their custody and many, many more were tortured? Right now it is the height of hypocrisy for this administration to try and take the moral highground on anything to do with Iraq. While Nick Berg was simply an innocent caught in the middle, all those crying for revenge should remember one simple fact:

In the eyes of the Arab world, while this is a horrific incident and, to most, a dispicable one the cold hard fact is that it was the US that started it...

[Sadistictickler]

Originally posted by leafstk
I feel sorry for you.... how on earth can you condone such horrific savagery? What those U.S. soldiers were doing at that Iraqi prison was dead wrong, but any comparison to sawing off a man's head while he's still alive is beyond comprehension. It is indefensible.

apart from the fact that I understand the Iraqi point of view is simply that such things happen all the friggin time in war-zones. In Chechnya (Russia) alot of Russian soldiers ended that way, in Africa hundreds of people were slaughered in a very similar way. Nobody seems to care, but if it's an American, whooo, wait, that's just totally inhumane...

[leafstk]

Originally posted by Sadistictickler
apart from the fact that I understand the Iraqi point of view is simply that such things happen all the friggin time in war-zones. In Chechnya (Russia) alot of Russian soldiers ended that way, in Africa hundreds of people were slaughered in a very similar way. Nobody seems to care, but if it's an American, whooo, wait, that's just totally inhumane...

This kind of act, where ever and to whom ever it occurs, is savagery, pure and simple. These kinds of acts usually take place at the hands of these extremist groups. The U.S. Army, nor that of any western nation, does not make a habit of sadistically and brutally mutilating prisoners of war. Viet Cong, Kmair Rouge, Chechen Rebels, Somali rebels, Al Quaida and other such terrorist groups make this common practise. Just look at the Israeli/palestinian conflict.... yesterday, Al Aqsa Martyr Brigades paraded body parts of Israeli soldiers through the streets of Gaza... just another reminder of the brutality of these people. I'm not defending the U.S. administration nor do I truly support their cause in Iraq or much of their foreign policy since 9/11. I'm just saying that such acts as these are despicable and beyond inhuman.

[Sadistictickler]

just know that to a muslim being raped is a whole lot worse than having your head sliced off in a barbaric way

[steph]

I'm generally a pacifist and I felt sad when I read this story yesterday. I don't like getting into vicious political arguements, but I just wanted to say, and I know it's wartime and all, but from what I can ascertain, this was a genuinely nice person who was actually there to HELP, not hurt these people. He posed absolutely no threat to them and this barbaric, unwarranted, sick act appalled me.
My God, they didn't even have the guts to show their faces. That's REALLY brave--BRRRR-AVO guys!!! :rolleyes:

XOXO

[leafstk]

well said Steph

[Roseblossom]

Originally posted by Mimi
Iranian radio accused western media of using the images for propaganda purposes. "As a result the issue of Iraqi prisoners' torture has been totally ignored by these media," the Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran said.

At a time when the whole world was foaming at the mouth with outrage at the torture perpetrated by the U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib, this beheading has replaced it in peoples' horrified minds and on the front page.

Very stupid move on their part; very useful for the U.S. - and the poor victim got caught in the crossfire.

~Rose~

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by buggs
You know, they make movies about guys like these Al Quaida douchebags. They are called Michael Myers or Jason Voorhees. No mater what Al Quaida says, this is not an eye for an eye. This is how these guys are. They are serial killers using a cause as an excuse to act they naturally are. They are sick sadistic f**ks who don't care about human life. And they say doing this will "get me in Allah's good graces when I die." And do you know what they believe their reward is when they die and go to Allah? That they get to have sex with 40 young virgins. I am not saying this is what all Muslims believe. I am saying that this is what this small segment of these sick, twisted, dirt bag pieces of s**t believe. This is their basic nature. Something is wrong in their head. They don't, nor will they ever know right or wrong. I am not saying the prison guards who tortured those Iraqi's should get off scott free either. If it where up to me every one of those Prison Guards who tortured an Iraqi should go to jail for 50 years. This is not what we are there for. But don't use that as an excuse to kill an innocent person. And this is not Iraqi's doing this. This is Al Quaida, and the guy who did the beheading who was running the Al Quaida training camp in Northern Iraq Since 1999.

"Another man from Baghdad, Atef Jassem, added: "Musab is a terrorist and all of the resistance is coming from outside Iraq, like Syria and other parts of the world."

This is also all of the prisoners who Saddam released the first night of the war. He took all the nuts and crazies and wack jobs and let them all out. This is what we are fighting there. I think when we hand over Iraq to the Iraqi's and they get a taste of the freedom that we are giving them they will start fighting back. I was watching on the news. Under Saddam most parts of Iraq only had electricity for 1 hour a week. Now most places have it on hours a day and it is going to soon be 24 hours a day every day. They finally have clean drinking water. Some cities streets where covered in human waste as there was no sewage system. Now there is all over the place. All you are hearing is the bad on the news, but a lot of the soldiers I have talked to said we didn't know anyone hated us except for the extremist till we got back here. Most of the people are glad we are there. I think in 10 years, no matter how unpopular this appears now, this will be the thing that historians will look back and said "as unpopular as it was it was the thing that started the stabilization of the middle east that we know today." It will be like when Regan called Russia the "Evil Empire" and everyone freaked. But historians now say that it was the thing that started the turn and ended communist in Russia. As hard as it sounds, in order to make an omelette you have to break some eggs. History is replete with incidents where violent acts preceded, and where needed to accomplish the peace that came after.

I've got just one question. How can you be so outraged at this when the Coalition has killed over ten THOUSAND Iraqi's since the start of this whole sordid mess. Was this beheading a barbaric act? Yes, absolutely. But please don't act as if it happened in a vacuum, as if there were no possible reason that, when seen from the other side, could be used to justify it.

Remember that at least one man WAS killed by US forces (and I believe the man responsible is facing trial) while in custody. The Coalition forces have committed numerous war crimes themselves in this conflict, and that's not my opinion, that's a clear case of international law. You want to talk about right and wrong? Then tell me this, if the US is the moral force you claim why has it refused to sign up to the international criminal court? After all, isn't it only the guilty that need fear?

As for “He took all the nuts and crazies and wack jobs and let them all out. This is what we are fighting there “ - complete and total rubbish I'm afraid. Unless of course he released ten thousand Shi-ite's who then went on to form a militia. Unless the bulk of those living in Falluja were incarcerated by Saddam. Again, I'm not saying that these elements have nothing to do with the troubles but it is a gross simplification and distortion of the truth to claim they are the sole cause of trouble in Iraq. The simple fact is the wave of hostility being bred there is fueled by what people in the region see as gross over-reaction by Coalition forces and a complete ignorance of the local culture. The abuse of prisoners, and the accompanying pictures, are simply documented proof of this misconduct in the eyes of many in that region.

Of course most of the troops had no idea they were hated, I'd make damn sure to smile and think polite thoughts around an invading army if I knew people who'd been picked up seemingly at random and imprisoned for months without charge or trial.

As for Saddam al-Qaida links, Colin Powell himself has said that “I have not seen smoking gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but I do believe the connections existed “. Hardly a ringing endorsement considering this was a primary reason to invade a nation.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3909150/

Powell defended those comments Thursday, even as he cast doubt on their conclusions. He said that at the time, he was referring specifically to the presence of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Baghdad for medical treatments.
The United States has accused al-Zarqawi of being a close associate of bin Laden’s, but intelligence agencies in France and other European countries that opposed the U.S. war argued that al-Zarqawi was an independent operator.


It is also well known that bin Laden had certain issues against Saddam (I believe religion was one of them as it happens) and the common consensus seems to be it is most unlikely he would have sought any sort of partnership with the dictator. If al-Qaida have established a significant presence in Iraq it is ONLY because of a total failure by the Coalition to put enough troops on the ground to maintain border security in the country.

I also fail to see how Iraq will be the "thing that historians will look back and said "as unpopular as it was it was the thing that started the stabilization of the middle east that we know today"". I would have thought it far more likely for that to be an end to the Israel/Palestine conflict. The US, right at this moment in time and from the vast majority of reports I have seen from the region, is seen as a conqueror not a liberator. The 'liberation' of Iraq as a grand statement in the power of democracy has failed, of that there can surely be no question. The handover of power in June is looking more and more like a ceremonial act only and that will be another bitter blow to the Iraqi people. The most likely outcome of this is Iraq splitting into three separate entities (as maybe it should) possibly with a civil war thrown into the mix for good measure. US credibility in the middle east has been torn to shreds by its actions (or lack thereof), and its credibility with the rest of the world has been badly damaged by its gung-ho attitude and rush to war. Ever bit of political capital and good will that was built up in the twelve years Bush senior and Clinton were in office has been squandered and the US finds itself standing alone right when it needs allies the most.

New York Times columnist and war hawk David Brooks perhaps said it best recently when he wrote:


"We didn't understand the tragic irony that our power is also our weakness. As long as we seemed so mighty, others, even those we were aiming to assist, were bound to revolt. They would do so for their own self-respect. In taking out Saddam, we robbed the Iraqis of the honor of liberating themselves. The fact that they had no means to do so is beside the point."

"We've got to acknowledge first that the old debates are obsolete. I wish the U.S could still go off, after Iraq, at the head of 'coalitions of the willing' to spread democracy around the world. But the brutal fact is that the events of the past year have discredited that approach."

"We've got to come up with a global alliance of democracies to embody democratic ideals, harness U.S. military power and house a permanent nation-building apparatus, filled with people who actually possess expertise on how to do this job."


“These guys just aint right in the head and we need to get 'em off of our planet cause they are serious, and for real, and they aren't going away. “

Congratulations, you've just committed Genocide. How does it feel to be advocating global policies last suggested by one A. Hitler? Doesn't it occur to you, even if just for a moment, that the instant you start a crusade based on the reasoning you've expressed here you open up the world's biggest recruiting office for these sort of organizations? After all how do you tell the difference between a “wack job” and a “normal person”? Well, if the wack job in question is smart enough not to wear a “I want to kill you all” badge, you can't. So innocents WILL be targeted (just look at Iraq for proof of that) and once that happens the innocent will quickly realize that, if they're going to be rounded up and killed anyway, they might as well take a few of “them” with 'em when they go.

Terrorism cannot be fought as a conventional enemy, we've seen that time and time again. Threats do not work as more than a short term solution, large scale violence only creates more 'terrorists', it must be handled with subtlety, quietly, and in a systematic way. Cut off their support mechanisms, damage their infrastructure and by all means take out those belonging to these groups but ONLY when there is no collateral damage associated with the action.

[the_Baron]

how long does it take to write that much?

[BOFH666]

Umnmm... *checks editing time* about twenty five minutes, including five minutes for sourcing data and five minutes for a combined spell check , grammer check and, most importantly, sanity check.

Oh damn, forgot to mention, nice to see you back by the way!

[Sadistictickler]

Baron, if you haven't got any useful thing to say about it, then don't say anything at all....

BOFH666: I totally agree. I'm glad it doesn't seem I'm the only one who's looking at it from a different point of view

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by Sadistictickler
Baron, if you haven't got any useful thing to say about it, then don't say anything at all....


Now now, 'tis a fair point and, it must be said, a much needed source of levity in an otherwise depressing thread.


BOFH666: I totally agree. I'm glad it doesn't seem I'm the only one who's looking at it from a different point of view

Umm, for the record, I really, really, really don't follow the theory of "they had it coming and I'm glad they got it". Personally I'm disgusted by this and would like nothing more than for those that did this to be brought to justice. However, as with everything in life there are three sides to any argument ("their" side, "your" side and the truth) and while I might not agree with some of "their" side I don't believe you can find the truth before you acknowledge and, as far as possible understand those views.

Most of all, and I have no problem with admiting this, I get tired of reading pure "kill 'em all" threads from EITHER side that twist and distort the facts or, in some cases, express opinion as fact with no supporting evidence. It's just that rather than rant right back (umm, though that last one got dangerously close to that, sorry everyone) I'd rather go read up on the subject, research the facts expressed in such a post and see what the evidence supports before posting. That way, and as Baron pointed out, it does take a while, even if no-one reads it I've learnt something I may otherwise have missed.

[Sadistictickler]

For your information people: Hizbollah has just condemned the action saying those guys claiming to be muslims are a shame to Islam

The Koran officially prohibits such actions. Of course, if it was a soldiers, excellent (according to koran) but seeing the fact that this man was innocent it's a vile crime according to islam

so let it be clear this is not a muslim vs americans conflict, just some isolated nutters.

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by buggs
Um..yes they did have training camps in Iraq.

"The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee....

According to the memo--which lays out the intelligence in 50 numbered points--Iraq-al Qaeda contacts began in 1990 and continued through mid-March 2003, days before the Iraq War began. Most of the numbered passages contain straight, fact-based intelligence reporting, which some cases includes an evaluation of the credibility of the source. This reporting is often followed by commentary and analysis.

The relationship began shortly before the first Gulf War. According to reporting in the memo, bin Laden sent "emissaries to Jordan in 1990 to meet with Iraqi government officials." At some unspecified point in 1991, according to a CIA analysis, "Iraq sought Sudan's assistance to establish links to al Qaeda." The outreach went in both directions. According to 1993 CIA reporting cited in the memo, "bin Laden wanted to expand his organization's capabilities through ties with Iraq."

The primary go-between throughout these early stages was Sudanese strongman Hassan al-Turabi, a leader of the al Qaeda-affiliated National Islamic Front. Numerous sources have confirmed this. One defector reported that "al-Turabi was instrumental in arranging the Iraqi-al Qaeda relationship. The defector said Iraq sought al Qaeda influence through its connections with Afghanistan, to facilitate the transshipment of proscribed weapons and equipment to Iraq. In return, Iraq provided al Qaeda with training and instructors."

One such confirmation came in a postwar interview with one of Saddam Hussein's henchmen. As the memo details:


4. According to a May 2003 debriefing of a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, Iraqi intelligence established a highly secretive relationship with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and later with al Qaeda. The first meeting in 1992 between the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and al Qaeda was brokered by al-Turabi. Former IIS deputy director Faruq Hijazi and senior al Qaeda leader [Ayman al] Zawahiri were at the meeting--the first of several between 1992 and 1995 in Sudan. Additional meetings between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda were held in Pakistan. Members of al Qaeda would sometimes visit Baghdad where they would meet the Iraqi intelligence chief in a safe house. The report claimed that Saddam insisted the relationship with al Qaeda be kept secret. After 9-11, the source said Saddam made a personnel change in the IIS for fear the relationship would come under scrutiny from foreign probes."

But here is a bunch of links to refference the link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0%2C2763%2C779359%2C00.html

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/text8-22-2002-24979.asp

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/894633/posts

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36318

Here is an interview with the Al Quaida ambassadore to Saddam:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/768rwsbj.asp

In fact, this link even shows they trained some of the 9/11 hijackers in the Iraq training camp:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1046414/posts

And as far as killing all of Al Quaida, or committing genocide on Al Quaida, I have no problem with that. What is their main, nay only goal in life, to kill eveyone who is not one of them. To Jihad. Do you actually think you can rehabilitate these people? Are you that Naive? They are not able to be rehabilitated. They are like a animal that has tasted human blood. They cant go back. These people are not able to be turned. They are in it for life. They will be killers for life. If one of these sick f***s gets a biological weapon or suitcase nuke they won't hesitate to not use it. Hitler was killing innocent people. These are not innocent people. These are people who live or die by Jihad. There is not even a remote similarity between the Jews that Hitler killed and Al Quaida.

I am still looking for articles of Saddam releasing the prisoners on the night of the first bombing, but I know it was reported by both CNN and FOX, and as soon as I find them I will post them here.

Ummm, right, you do know that October 27th 2003 report was, well, here:

http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/newswire/nw03/mnd/newswire111703.htm


News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate.

A letter was sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee on October 27, 2003 from Douglas J. Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, in response to follow-up questions from his July 10 testimony. One of the questions posed by the committee asked the Department to provide the reports from the Intelligence Community to which he referred in his testimony before the Committee. These reports dealt with the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida.

The letter to the committee included a classified annex containing a list and description of the requested reports, so that the Committee could obtain the reports from the relevant members of the Intelligence Community.

The items listed in the classified annex were either raw reports or products of the CIA, the NSA, or, in one case, the DIA. The provision of the classified annex to the Intelligence Committee was cleared by other agencies and done with the permission of the Intelligence Community. The selection of the documents was made by DOD to respond to the Committee’s question. The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaida, and it drew no conclusions.

Individuals who leak or purport to leak classified information are doing serious harm to national security; such activity is deplorable and may be illegal.


On your other evidence:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jun2003/iraq-j24.shtml

According to the Times report of June 9 (“Captives Deny Qaeda Worked With Baghdad,” by James Risen), Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who were captured in separate operations, gave similar accounts. An official who had read the classified CIA report on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, captured in March 2002, spoke to the newspaper. He said the Al Qaeda operative told his American captors that a suggestion had been raised that the group seek cooperation from Saddam Hussein, but had been quickly overruled by its leader, Osama bin Laden. (It is well known that bin Laden considered the secular Ba’athist regime anathema to Al Qaeda’s goal of creating Islamic states.)

US intelligence officials also told the Times that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, captured March 1 of this year, told interrogators that Al Qaeda had not cooperated in any way with Iraq.

“The Bush administration has not made these statements public, though it has frequently highlighted intelligence reports that supported its assertions of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda as it made its case for war against Iraq,” the Times noted.


If you'll look at the quote I provided, you'll see that Colin Powell has said there is no concrete evidence. I don't know about you but that tends to make me think there might not, in all honesty, be any. Just a hunch.

You seem to have misunderstod what I was saying so let me try again. If you'll note the last paragraph of my post I said by all means hunt down terrorists, but do so quietly, subtly and in a systematic way. My issue was in your use of Religion as a prime motivator for you reasoning to kill these people and, if you use Religious beliefs as a guide you will end up killing far more innocents than you will terrorists. Let me put this another way, if I showed you five people in a line up, all of the same height, build, dress and religion and told you one of them was a terrorist, would you kill them all to take out the terrorist? How about if it was ten people? Or fifty? Or a hundred? At what point is the human cost too great? THAT is the dilema we face as aside from the media celebrities (bin Laden for example) a terrorist can fire a missile, turn the corner and be part of the people again. Leave Religion out of your justification, concentrate on the actions taken by these people otherwise you WILL end up attacking Muslims as a group, even if unintentionaly.

Case in point:


I am saying that this is what this small segment of these sick, twisted, dirt bag pieces of s**t believe."


I am well aware of what you meant here, but the literal interpretation is that al-qaeda is a "small segment" of a larger group (Muslim). Unfortunatley this reads as all Muslim's are "sick, twisted, dirt bag pieces of s**t". See the problem?

Also, again if you re-read my post, I never said Saddam DIDN'T release these prisoners, just that they are hardly the ONLY source of violence in Iraq.

[TicklingIsLife]

Prayers are with his family...:redheart::angel:

[TKpervert]

Gotta go with Buggs on this one. These Muslim extremists can't be reasoned with, can't be pacified, violence is all they know, and they must be 'neutralized' one by one with as little collateral damage as possible.

They're like mice in the attic, they just won't listen when you try to reason with them and ask them to go away. The viable solution is to crush their spines one by one with Victor snap traps.
Mission accomplished, no collateral damage.

[TKpervert]

Originally posted by Sadistictickler
For your information people: Hizbollah has just condemned the action saying those guys claiming to be muslims are a shame to Islam



A cheap P.R. trick if ever I saw one, and I've seen plenty.

Hezbollah enjoys blowing up busloads of women and children, but goes public saying "Oh Golly!!" when an American dies.

yeah right

[kis123]

I would like to interject my 2cents here.

I believe the general concensus here, barring a couple of people, is that no one agrees with violence of any sort. It was bad enough that US soldiers tortured and violated those Iraqi prisoners. Then, these cowardly sob's killed non-military personnel that came there to help their sorry butts. At least our soldiers faces were shown. Nick Berg didn't even get to see who took his life. He didn't even see it coming.

Sadistictickler, I'm glad it wasnt' a member of your family or friends that was beheaded and thrown away like garbage. I'm glad you feel it's okay to rob human life. I'm not just talking about American life, but a human life. You should be ashamed at your bottomless morality, but I know you're not. I hope it never happens to you or anyone you personally know.

Once again for the record: IT'S AN ATROCITY REGARDLESS OF WHAT COUNTRY THE VICTIM CAME FROM. IT DOES HURT MORE TO ME AS AN AMERICAN BECAUSE HE WAS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. IF HE WAS IRAQI AND THE US SOLDIERS DID IT, I'D BE JUST AS OUTRAGED!!!!!!!!!

Personally, if you're in Iraq and you're not military, you should pack your sh*t and get the hell outta there before it happens to you! Leave the Iraqi people to themeselves and everyone get out!

[BOFH666]

Well the evil is still around, and people are making excuses and forgetting the nature of the enemy that we are fighting. I know people in our country are starting to get mad at the war and all that. All I can say is that if we were then how we are today we would have never won WWII.


Buggs you have a truly remarkable talent when it comes to twisting the facts to suit your purpose, my advice would be to run for government.

No-one in this thread has said to stop targeting terrorism. People are getting mad at the war because, and pay close attention now, there is no proof that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 or al-qaeda or had WMD or anything else that they were accused of. If there WERE such proof there can surely be no doubt that the US (and UK for that matter) would have made it into posters and attached them to every tree, building, fence and bus they could find. They are desperate right now for such proof to vindicate them but it has never come. That in and of itself suggests that such proof simply does not exist.

Again you equate terrorism to a conventional war and this, quite simply is wrong. As I've said before in this thread, but which you seem to be willfully ignoring, a terrorist is only a terrorist as long as they're holding a weapon. The instant they drop that weapon they blend back into the crowd, into the innocent, and that's the problem. If you wage a conventional war, as has been done in Iraq and Afghanistan, you may kill a handful of terrorists but you will kill many times that number of innocent people to do so.

The war against terrorism is not, primarily, one of military might. It is a PR war, a marketing campaign on an epic scale. And in this regard the 'good guys' are loosing and loosing badly. Look at Afghanistan, since the war it has become a very dangerous place, tribal wars and corruption are rife and large chunks of the country are considered no-go areas. Worse, the mission in Afghanistan, capturing bin Laden, was not accomplished (unless that is he's sitting in a cell somewhere to be produced around, oh, October time).While casualty reports are less than accurate, the number of people killed in Afghanistan during the war has been estimated at anything from 1,000 to 4,000.

Then there is Iraq which has been the biggest and best recruitment drive for the terrorist networks they could have ever wished for. Just as an example, when American troops first 'liberated' Basra they planted the American flag. Wrong move, and one that the British were VERY quick to correct once they arrived, but the damage was done. Planting another nation's flag in a town or territory is not the act of a liberator, it is the act of a conqueror. And it is this image problem that has been the main problem ever since. Deaths in Iraq have been quoted as over 10,000.

If you want to stop terrorism it is done quietly, over the course of years and with a great deal of patience. You present an alternative to whatever mindset is prevelant among the terrorists and reinforce that alternative wherever possible. You rise above petty revenge, you target only those you know to be guilty and show, graphically, time after time why your way is “better” and where the future lies. This may 'convert' existing terrorists but the important aspect is to convince the young that there is a better way. Those that cannot be reasoned with must, be brought to justice though it is always preferable to imprison rather than kill. There will, unfortunately, be casualties along the way on both sides, but retaliation, or revenge, will only harm the overall goal of peace. Note that's not “peace at any price”, but a peace that is brought about through mutual understanding and balanced (preferably international) justice for the guilty.

Let me put this another way. The average age of an American soldier these days is what, 19? And I'd be fairly willing to bet that they join the army because they want to defend their country. Note, that's defend their country not their president in a personal capacity. Now take that same 19 year old and put him in Iraq. He knows Saddam was a “bad man” and is as glad to be rid of him as anyone else but that doesn't mean he doesn't love his country. When he sees images on the television of American troops abusing prisoners, when he lives in fear of having to cross an American checkpoint, when his best friend is picked up and imprisoned for months with no charges and no reason, he is going to conclude that America is acting against the best interests of his country. And just like that one more is added to the ranks of terrorists worldwide.

Let me reiterate the basic point here, the war in Iraq was not a war on terrorism. The evidence behind the claims was inaccurate or just plain wrong, and the execution of both the war itself and the situation that came after it has been horrifically poor. All it has accomplished is a handful of flag waving moments for the public (which have been torn asunder by the recent scandal) and created the perfect conditions for terrorist networks to recruit.

By your reasoning the British should have leveled Ireland decades ago, turned it into the worlds biggest car park. Sorry but we lived through this, we made the mistakes and lives were lost but we are finally looking at a chance for peace. How that will go, or how long it will last I do not know, but at least it's a chance. There was no quick fix, no easy solution, and this chance has been bought with a high price tag indeed, but we made it and it is now up to us to make it work.

[giggleygirl25]

i have nothing to add to this political,religious debate...just think it's sad that so many HUMAN BEINGS are dead as a result of what has gone on for the last 2 years...i don't care if they are Iraqi,American,English,Aliens or whatever...they are dead and it's sad...and it should be remembered that after all we are HUMANS first and citizens of many diverse nations second

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by giggleygirl25
i have nothing to add to this political,religious debate...just think it's sad that so many HUMAN BEINGS are dead as a result of what has gone on for the last 2 years...i don't care if they are Iraqi,American,English,Aliens or whatever...they are dead and it's sad...and it should be remembered that after all we are HUMANS first and citizens of many diverse nations second

And thus the point and truth is wrapped up in 374 characters. :D :bowing: :bowing: :bowing: :bowing: :D

[kis123]

Originally posted by giggleygirl25
i have nothing to add to this political,religious debate...just think it's sad that so many HUMAN BEINGS are dead as a result of what has gone on for the last 2 years...i don't care if they are Iraqi,American,English,Aliens or whatever...they are dead and it's sad...and it should be remembered that after all we are HUMANS first and citizens of many diverse nations second

I've been trying to say this all along! None of this matters to the families of the victims. They have familes, loved ones, friends that will miss their presence. They may have left children behind, some may have lost their children. Does political or religious views really matter at the cemetary?

[Sadistictickler]

Originally posted by TKpervert
A cheap P.R. trick if ever I saw one, and I've seen plenty.

Hezbollah enjoys blowing up busloads of women and children, but goes public saying "Oh Golly!!" when an American dies.

yeah right

no cheap PR, Islam really forbids this kind of action. The fact that those guys were shouting "god is great" made them imo officially religion-rapists

[shock]

I've just seen the video. It devastated me. I can hardly type now.

I really hope that nobody of Mr. Berg's family and friends will ever see it.

[Knox The Hatter]

I don't even want to see it.

[leafstk]

Why on earth would anyone WANT to see it???? :confused: :(

[steph]

Well, y'all are in luck...Rumor is they've closed the site...

XOXO

[leafstk]

Good... images on the news and in the papers were enough to upset me, I don't know why people would even attempt to watch the entire thing. The family of that poor kid must be horrified, I can't even imagine.

[Hitman]

All I can say about this is we americans need to do something damn american about it and blow that crap out of the people who did this. The fact of the matter is that what happend to Nick Berg is worng and what happend in the iraqies in the prison is worng. But you cant condem the whole US military for the actions of a few.

[kis123]

Originally posted by Hitman
All I can say about this is we americans need to do something damn american about it and blow that crap out of the people who did this. The fact of the matter is that what happend to Nick Berg is worng and what happend in the iraqies in the prison is worng. But you cant condem the whole US military for the actions of a few.

Nor can anyone condemn the entire race of Iraqi people for the actions of a few extremist pigs! What happened to Nick Berg is deplorable at the very least and the people responsible should burn in this life and the next. But let's not forget that these animals represent themselves, not the entire nation of Iraq. We have to remain calm and keep our heads clear so those responsible and no one else gets hurt. For all we know, this could've been done to drive the American people to blood lust. Then we'd be no better than the animals who did this. I don't want that blood on my hands.

Please remember, if the US would've cleared Nick Berg of so called terrorist alliances sooner, maybe he would've been home that day and not available for capture, torture, and the most disgusting way to die I've personally ever seen. His father is not changing his story of how he blames Bush and the administration for his son's death, not the Iraqi people.

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by kis123
Nor can anyone condemn the entire race of Iraqi people for the actions of a few extremist pigs! What happened to Nick Berg is deplorable at the very least and the people responsible should burn in this life and the next. But let's not forget that these animals represent themselves, not the entire nation of Iraq. We have to remain calm and keep our heads clear so those responsible and no one else gets hurt. For all we know, this could've been done to drive the American people to blood lust. Then we'd be no better than the animals who did this. I don't want that blood on my hands.

Please remember, if the US would've cleared Nick Berg of so called terrorist alliances sooner, maybe he would've been home that day and not available for capture, torture, and the most disgusting way to die I've personally ever seen. His father is not changing his story of how he blames Bush and the administration for his son's death, not the Iraqi people.

Concur 100%. And does anyone want to bet how long it'll be before his father gets an anonymous threatening phone call from a member of the public who thinks what he's saying is un-american?

[phatteus]

A lot of strong words flying around in this room. Allow me to add a few:

It has been said before, I will say it again. ANY loss of human life is a tragedy. There I said it. Now I say let's kill these fucking cowards slowly, painfully, and publicly. Then let's bring them back to life and do it a few more times.

Most of you don't know me too well, so I'll tell you that I am personally not a violent person. I don't like to fight. But when someone brings a fight to me, I am not afraid to stand my ground. These people claiming to be working under the name of Allah are nothing of the sort. they are cold, calculating murderers just like any other. The Son of Sam said Satan told him to kill people through the voice of his neighbor's dog. This is the same thing. Corrupted religion that leads to violence. Did anyone try to tiptoe around Berkowitz based on his religious beliefs? No, they convicted him as the maniacal murderer that he is.

Next topic. The brutality of the killing of this poor man. I don't want to speak for anyone here, but I will say for myself, that if this man were not American... hell, if he were Adolph Hitler himself, I would still feel bad for him based on the sheer torture that this poor man had to endure. For one thing, these animals were as stupid as they were evil, and allegedly took their dear sweet time in killing this guy. For another thing, had he been a soldier of war, at the very least his family could have had a slight amount of comfort in knowing that he might have been trained in anti-torture meditation, but this man was a simple contractor, a civillian, who had nothing to do with the crimes that these murderers were accusing him of, and had no manner in which to protect himself, to protect his dignity, or to find some ease in passing. He died a most horrible death, one that I would not wish on anyone, save the people that did this atrocity to him.

Thirdly, I believe it was "Buggs" who said that he or she (sorry, it is late, and I do not know exactly who you are) had only sought out the video in order to see the evil that we were fighting, or something like that. For someone to have such lucid, and intelligent things to say throughout a thread, and then say something silly like that is quite disappointing. Buggs, it is human nature to be drawn to morbidity. We are naturally fascinated by death, because deep down inside, we know that we must die. Wanting to see this video might make you feel dirty, might make you feel like a sick voyeur, but it is nothing to be ashamed of. I have not seen this video, but not because I don't want to. I have not seen this video because the mere thought of it is extremely disturbing to me. I'm sure that eventually I will be able to bring myself to see it, but right now my mind is simply too weak to view it.

Next, I think that the fourth estate should once again be ashamed of themselves. The media wasted absolutely no time in papering the walls of every home and office in the world with photos of Iraqi prisoners being tortured and humiliated. When a newscaster fucks up, they edit it out, but when a couple of fucking childish assholes in a position of power decide to go all Ansel Adams in a POW camp, and then humiliate and torture prisoners, the media has to go and shove it down our throats. Look everyone! Look at these horrible photographs of what THE AMERICANS ARE DOING TO THE PRISONERS! On the back page is written in tiny letters that four people are responsible for this horrible crime, but all over the front page of every paper in the world is written how THE AMERICANS are mistreating ALL THE PRISONERS. Then, a few days later, Mr. Berg is murdered by a bunch of guys in masks on camera... AND YOU CAN WATCH IT HERE ON THE NEWS! SEE!!!???!!!???!!!??? Then they show some of the video on the news, followed by "the rest of that video is too graphic to show here" .... so let me tell oyu all about it! Then they cut off his HEAD! And he screamed, and blah blah blah was when I had to turn off the TV. Then I come to find out Hey! It's online! I can go on the internet, and every shitface on the web has uploaded this atrocity to their personal pages, just so they can get more money from their sponsors. How about the shithead reporter who knocked on Mr. Berg's father's door, and asked "what are your thoughts?" Does the public really need to ask what this guy is thinking?? The media has no regard for human life, nor are they any longer in this to provide information. The media is all about ratings, and advertizing. A good example of this is my favorite phrase: This is a story you will only see on this channel. Is that because no one else cares about it? Or is that because your sponsors have forbidden anyone else from airing this story? Likewise, morbid human curiosity has allowed the fourth estate to carry on like this for years now. Who's to blame? The media. Allow the world to go on with our lives and stop telling us what to think about what's going on in the world. I weep for September 11, 2006. "5 years later, what went wrong?" TWO FUCKING PLANES HIT THEM!!! CAN WE PLEASE HAVE SOME CLOSURE???!!!

Finally, I have a lot of trouble with this "eye for an eye" bullshit. The phrase "an eye for an eye" has nothing to do with revenge. "My brother punched me in the nuts, so I knocked his teeth down his throat. I figure, and eye for an eye, right?" Wrong. An eye for an eye means that the punishment should fit the crime. "My brother punched me in the nuts, so, if I want, I can punch him in the nuts, and only in the nuts." An eye for an eye, a gonad for a gonad, the means justifies the end. These masked assholes murdering this contractor are not demonstrating ANYTHING remotely resembling the "eye for an eye" mandate. The ONLY way for the mandate to work in justification for the atrocities committed against the Iraqi prisoners would be the Iraqi prisoners doing the EXACT THINGS TO THE EXACT PEOPLE WHO COMMITTED THE CRIMES. To say that this man deserved to be tortured and beheaded in front of millions of people is ignorant, and downright stupid. This man did not deserve to die, no way, no how. Do not use cliche phrases if you do not know what they mean.

I'm getting riled up. I'm sorry if I've offended anyone.

[kis123]

Originally posted by phatteus
A lot of strong words flying around in this room. Allow me to add a few:

It has been said before, I will say it again. ANY loss of human life is a tragedy. There I said it. Now I say let's kill these fucking cowards slowly, painfully, and publicly. Then let's bring them back to life and do it a few more times.

Most of you don't know me too well, so I'll tell you that I am personally not a violent person. I don't like to fight. But when someone brings a fight to me, I am not afraid to stand my ground. These people claiming to be working under the name of Allah are nothing of the sort. they are cold, calculating murderers just like any other. The Son of Sam said Satan told him to kill people through the voice of his neighbor's dog. This is the same thing. Corrupted religion that leads to violence. Did anyone try to tiptoe around Berkowitz based on his religious beliefs? No, they convicted him as the maniacal murderer that he is.

Next topic. The brutality of the killing of this poor man. I don't want to speak for anyone here, but I will say for myself, that if this man were not American... hell, if he were Adolph Hitler himself, I would still feel bad for him based on the sheer torture that this poor man had to endure. For one thing, these animals were as stupid as they were evil, and allegedly took their dear sweet time in killing this guy. For another thing, had he been a soldier of war, at the very least his family could have had a slight amount of comfort in knowing that he might have been trained in anti-torture meditation, but this man was a simple contractor, a civillian, who had nothing to do with the crimes that these murderers were accusing him of, and had no manner in which to protect himself, to protect his dignity, or to find some ease in passing. He died a most horrible death, one that I would not wish on anyone, save the people that did this atrocity to him.

Thirdly, I believe it was "Buggs" who said that he or she (sorry, it is late, and I do not know exactly who you are) had only sought out the video in order to see the evil that we were fighting, or something like that. For someone to have such lucid, and intelligent things to say throughout a thread, and then say something silly like that is quite disappointing. Buggs, it is human nature to be drawn to morbidity. We are naturally fascinated by death, because deep down inside, we know that we must die. Wanting to see this video might make you feel dirty, might make you feel like a sick voyeur, but it is nothing to be ashamed of. I have not seen this video, but not because I don't want to. I have not seen this video because the mere thought of it is extremely disturbing to me. I'm sure that eventually I will be able to bring myself to see it, but right now my mind is simply too weak to view it.

Next, I think that the fourth estate should once again be ashamed of themselves. The media wasted absolutely no time in papering the walls of every home and office in the world with photos of Iraqi prisoners being tortured and humiliated. When a newscaster fucks up, they edit it out, but when a couple of fucking childish assholes in a position of power decide to go all Ansel Adams in a POW camp, and then humiliate and torture prisoners, the media has to go and shove it down our throats. Look everyone! Look at these horrible photographs of what THE AMERICANS ARE DOING TO THE PRISONERS! On the back page is written in tiny letters that four people are responsible for this horrible crime, but all over the front page of every paper in the world is written how THE AMERICANS are mistreating ALL THE PRISONERS. Then, a few days later, Mr. Berg is murdered by a bunch of guys in masks on camera... AND YOU CAN WATCH IT HERE ON THE NEWS! SEE!!!???!!!???!!!??? Then they show some of the video on the news, followed by "the rest of that video is too graphic to show here" .... so let me tell oyu all about it! Then they cut off his HEAD! And he screamed, and blah blah blah was when I had to turn off the TV. Then I come to find out Hey! It's online! I can go on the internet, and every shitface on the web has uploaded this atrocity to their personal pages, just so they can get more money from their sponsors. How about the shithead reporter who knocked on Mr. Berg's father's door, and asked "what are your thoughts?" Does the public really need to ask what this guy is thinking?? The media has no regard for human life, nor are they any longer in this to provide information. The media is all about ratings, and advertizing. A good example of this is my favorite phrase: This is a story you will only see on this channel. Is that because no one else cares about it? Or is that because your sponsors have forbidden anyone else from airing this story? Likewise, morbid human curiosity has allowed the fourth estate to carry on like this for years now. Who's to blame? The media. Allow the world to go on with our lives and stop telling us what to think about what's going on in the world. I weep for September 11, 2006. "5 years later, what went wrong?" TWO FUCKING PLANES HIT THEM!!! CAN WE PLEASE HAVE SOME CLOSURE???!!!

Finally, I have a lot of trouble with this "eye for an eye" bullshit. The phrase "an eye for an eye" has nothing to do with revenge. "My brother punched me in the nuts, so I knocked his teeth down his throat. I figure, and eye for an eye, right?" Wrong. An eye for an eye means that the punishment should fit the crime. "My brother punched me in the nuts, so, if I want, I can punch him in the nuts, and only in the nuts." An eye for an eye, a gonad for a gonad, the means justifies the end. These masked assholes murdering this contractor are not demonstrating ANYTHING remotely resembling the "eye for an eye" mandate. The ONLY way for the mandate to work in justification for the atrocities committed against the Iraqi prisoners would be the Iraqi prisoners doing the EXACT THINGS TO THE EXACT PEOPLE WHO COMMITTED THE CRIMES. To say that this man deserved to be tortured and beheaded in front of millions of people is ignorant, and downright stupid. This man did not deserve to die, no way, no how. Do not use cliche phrases if you do not know what they mean.

I'm getting riled up. I'm sorry if I've offended anyone.


Yeah.....what he said!! :rolleyes:

[kis123]

Originally posted by BOFH666
Concur 100%. And does anyone want to bet how long it'll be before his father gets an anonymous threatening phone call from a member of the public who thinks what he's saying is un-american?

I wouldn't be surprised if it hasn't happened already. I hope for the safety of the family as well as respecting the grave of Nick Berg. I got a horrible thought about grave desecration. I feel my mind sinking to an absolutely new low.

[Neutron]

Coming from me, but my opinion on this is the stupid shall be punished. This idiot knew the potential consequences, was offered a free ride out of the area and turned it down.


Tron

[Strider]

I concur.I'm not downplaying the gruesomeness of this killing,but the fact is,this guy knowingly put himself in a warzone where he doesn't speak the language,is travelling alone,to make him more of a target he happens to be Jewish,and the State Department warned him against going.I may catch flak for this,but he did take his fate in his own hands there.

[BOFH666]

Bearing in mind I'm referencing the British news channels, I'd have to respectfully disagree about the media reporting on this topic in the last few weeks. Actually, no, let me rephrase that, I'd have to disagree about SOME of the media's reporting on this topic in the last few weeks. That's better. The editor of the Mirror tabloid should be top of the list in the cruel and ironic punishments division for publishing the fake photographs of British troops abusing prisoners. Those were inexcusable as EVERY military professional I know (6, ranging from long time retired to active personnel) took one look and independently started ticking off what was wrong with them.

My main, regular media source is the BBC news network and I have to say they've done an exemplary job throughout the Iraq war (with the exception of the Dr David Kelly mess, thought even then they had the guts to run the Hutton inquiry as their lead story). The problem with the abuse photographs is, as you said, who's responsible. As the media keeps investigating the story it is looking less and less like this was just a handful of people responsible and that, at some level, this was a policy decision. The BBC though has taken great pains to point out that this there is only a handful of soldiers accused of this, they have gotten reactions from the Arab world and covered developments from, as far as is possible in a news organization, a neutral standpoint. They even showed Donald Rumsfeld's testimony last week live and in full.

Their reporting on the Nick Berg incident has followed the same standards. As an example, this is a quote from an article entitled “Muted Arab reaction to Berg beheading”:


After the horrifying pictures first appeared on an Islamist website on Tuesday, the main Arab satellite TV stations, al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya, did not follow their Western counterparts by leading with the story overnight.
Both showed short items on the killing, but did not dwell on its consequences. They chose instead to lead with the latest on the situation in Gaza.
On Wednesday, they did show longer items on the killing, but still placed considerably less emphasis on it than the Western media.
Some other Arab satellite stations like the Lebanese-based al-Hayat-LBC did lead with the story early on, but did not run long items on it.
Also in Lebanon, the Hezbollah backed TV station, al-Manar, ran a statement condemning the killing as shameful and ignoble.
None of the major satellite and national channels showed the moment of the beheading - saying that the story was strong enough without those images and it would have been indecent to show them.


The BBC's own reporting on this topic has, in my opinion, been nothing less than outstanding. They have presented the facts, as far as I am aware they haven't shown the video, and they have been very precise in their language doing, in short, what all media outlets should do. That is, provide information to the public for them to make a fair, balanced judgment on world events.

I know the situation is different in America, and if I may be so bold as to offer a foreign view on reporting standards, it always seems to me that US news channels are sitting squarely right of centre. Certainly as you said there is a vested interest in pleasing sponsors and getting ratings. This isn't really an issue for the BBC as they are paid for from our “license fee”, have no commercial breaks and, by and large, no investors to satisfy. It is their job to report the news and by and large they do a superb job.

I have to say that the thought of the media NOT jumping on this story would be a deeply worrying one to me. The suppression of information in a supposed free society is always a cause for concern, and in this case silence would have been an extremely political statement. If these pictures has simply been released with no warning it might have been a different story but the US knew two weeks before the event this was going to happen. You have to wonder if Nick Berg would still have been alive had President Bush gone on air, made a statement in public and said “We have some bad news. We have discovered evidence of prisoner abuse and torture in Iraq and we would like to apologize for this and this is what we are going to do about it.” Would it have made any difference? In truth I don't know, but it would have at least given the impression that the US care about the harm done to Iraqi's rather than the damage done to it's own image.

The only thing I would like to say about the people that did this is that they shouldn't be arbitrarily killed “slowly, painfully and publicly”. Doing so would only lower us to their level. Either kill them quietly, privately in a military operation specifically targeted at them, or for preference, bring them to justice. Put them on trial, present the evidence, give them a chance to defend themselves. For preference try them in Iraq and apply the laws of that country to their punishment. I have seen many, many people over the last few days saying variations on “they had a chance to rise above revenge for the prisoner abuse photos”, well this is OUR chance to do the same thing and act according to our principles rather than our emotions. Who knows how many more chances we'll get to do that before it's too late?

[kis123]

Originally posted by Neutron
Coming from me, but my opinion on this is the stupid shall be punished. This idiot knew the potential consequences, was offered a free ride out of the area and turned it down.


Tron

C'mon Tron;

Can't you do better than this? If this were someone you knew personally, say a family member or friend, is this the best you could say? Many people down there knew what the risks were, but they went anyway. Some as soldiers, some as missionaries, some as businesspeople. They have been doing it for years. Some people were getting ambushed on some of those roads and he pannicked, that's why he didn't go. Why was he held 13days and basically ignored by our own government? No one has been willing to deal with that. If Nick Berg's father has anything to say about it, we're going to learn the truth whether we want to know it or not.

Even if he were the most stupid man on the earth at the time, did he really deserve to die worse than a hog in a slaughterhouse? He didn't even get to do it privately. Would you want to go through something like that, then have someone respond like you did? You're entitled to your opinion even if it shows blatent disrespect to the man and his family.

There are people posting to this thread that basically need to engage their thoughts before letting them out to the public. Some folks are really making themselves look bad.

[kis123]

Buggs;

I've been trying to read your posts and understand your position, but unfortunatlely, I can't. I do agree we need to get pissed off, but not at who you think. I am anti-war and pro-American. I love my country, but I hate who's been running things. We're in Iraq for big-oil and big-business and could care less about Saddam or any of the Iraqi people. We're just there to protect the big money interests that keep a precious few going. On the other side, more people are losing their jobs an having them sent overseas. The middle class is dissipating in this country. The poor are getting poorer and the middle class will eventually join them.

Do you really think our government gives a rat's rear end about us? If they did, NAFTA never would've happened. That killed the American economy to the citizens and fattened the coffers of the elite rich.

I believe that 9/11 has more going on than meets the eye and it's slowly getting exposed. I believe that the prisoner abuse cases have been going on for longer than has been said. Since Bush blew by the UN to go to war and flushed our Constitution and democratic due process out the window in order to get his way, I pretty much lay all the blame for this mess at his feet. Let's not forget that he flat out lied about WMD and Saddam's alleged association to Bin Laden as excuses to go to war. This is a man whose family has been in bed with the Hussein and BinLaden families (oil, oil, oil) for decades. While we're on the subject of BinLaden, what happened to him? He's still not captured. They got Saddam, they can get BinLaden, that is if they really wanted to get him. If you don't remember anything else, this is a man who stole a Presidential election in order to get into office, and will probably do it again this year.

So if you want to get pissed off, do so. But, there's more to this than a handful of extremists who kill because they're murderers without a real cause. Our government has a lot of responsibility for dragging us into a war that at least, was unecessary, at most was greedy.

[Strider]

I love my country, but I hate who's been running things. We're in Iraq for big-oil and big-business and could care less about Saddam or any of the Iraqi people. We're just there to protect the big money interests that keep a precious few going.

Then,just out of curioisity.Why in the hell have we gone to so much trouble if this was the goal?If it was just about oil,wouldn't it have been far easier to make a sweetheart deal with Saddam and pressure the UN into lifting sanctions in return for access to some of the oil fields?That's what Russia and France did.As it is,the oil infrastructure in the country is being sabatoged almost daily and western contractors don't even want to go to the place.

[BOFH666]

Look at the "big-business" part of the equation. The oil industry (or perhaps more accuratley, the Oil Export business) is important but it is by no means the only business in Iraq. There is a huge ammount of money to be made in contracts to repair the local infrastructure, in providing services necessary for daily life, and for security. Heck, look at the private security firms now working in Iraq both for private jobs and under contract to the military. 10 years ago that industry didn't really exist, now it's worth $100 Billion a year.

Just to give some food for thought, Vice President Dick Cheney is currently being paid "up to" $1 million dollars a year from Halliburton as part of his severence package following his resignation as Chief Executive to go work for Bush. Halliburton have, to date, recieved contracts in Iraq worth up to $2 Billion dollars, and that's just for reconstruction to the oil industry there.

I believe that somewhere in the region of $20 Billion was approved for the reconstruction of Iraq, and I will guarantee you a lot of that money will never leave the US. Of course, it will be redistributed somewhat, taken from tax payments, payed to firms with sufficient lobbying power in Washington to obtain the contracts and from there, well, let's say I'd be surprised if the rank and file saw a huge pay rise as a result.

And remember, this is all US money right now, it doesn't take into account any funds Iraq itself has or will have from its own exports. Make no mistake, while it is not the sole reason for this war, the fact is reconstruction efforts and money from Iraq are reinforcing the US economy right now. This is a well-established pattern in the US and elsewhere, whether it is for 'reconstruction' efforts or for the sales of new arms to rebuild armies that have been destroyed in a war where the US (or whoever's selling the weapons) supported the other side... Kis is spot on with this one, though I think Lisa Simpson said it best:


This will be one nation, under the dollar, with liberty and justice for none.

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by buggs

I have been very pro for this war because I know the war is being waged for a few reasons. I know everyone is talking oil but in 8 years we will have fuel cell cars running off of fuel derived from water (the reason why it is taking so long to get out) and the oil companies are taking steps right now to adjust from producing gasoline to hydrogen fuel from water. The process is not as stable now as it is and scientist are working hard right now with major funding from Bush to get it to work. This administration has funded it more than any other administration). I know I will get a lot of posts stating that isn’t so but I talked to a scientist working right now and he confirms this, as shocked as he himself was.

"A scientist" - umm, please provide an actual printed source of that because the fact is Bush has cut his budget for alternative fuel research year on year in favor of supporting cleaner coal programs. Certainly I've seen no evidence to support this claim. And for the record, do you really think oil is ONLY used to run cars? What about airliners and military vehicles, what about making plastics, what about running power stations? Fuel cells will help but they are by no means a catch-all solution and, frankly, there are already working fuel cells. I believe Mercedes has an A-class that runs off a fuel cell and is totally standard in terms of dimensions and accommodations. It's just the price issue they need to address.

The main reason we are in Iraq is because we need a foothold of democracy in the middle east to stabilize it.


Oh please, the only way this would work is if you colonized the whole Middle East. Democracy as a concept can work there, but Iraq is the WORST place possible to start it. The fact is Ahmed Chalabi provided information to the US that they would be greeted as liberators and that he would be able to set up a pro-Israel Iraq, and the Neo-Con's believed him. Slight problem with that plan, he was lying through his teeth and using the US to do the dirty work, knowing full well that the Israel-friendly Iraq he had painted for the US would never happen and in truth he was far more likely to seek alliances with Iran. When that fell apart there was no plan B, but by then it was too late. If you want to stabalise a region by introducing a democratic system you do not do so at the point of a gun. You give the people the chance to come to that choice naturally through their own free will.

As vile and repulsive as the beheading is to us, it is just another day in paradise to the people there. That sh*t happens all of the time there.

And the US Government kills people on a regular basis. It's called the death penalty, is legal in 38 states and I doubt the end result is any less nasty for the victim, so unless you're totally, 100% sure that no innocent citizen was ever executed by the state... what was your point again?

He said these people want to die killing people. It is the greatest thing they can do in their belief of their religion. That is what makes these a**holes 200 times harder to take out then the Germans. The German soldier wanted to kill his enemy, yes, but he wanted do it where he was still going to live. With these guys there is no ceiling in what they will do. Unlike the American and Japanese or German soldiers who fought against each other in WW2 and 50 years later can sit with each other and talk about the war and how insane it was and befriend each other, that ain’t never going to happen here. There was a show on the discovery channel about how on Christmas Eve this American and German regiment that had been shooting at an bombing each other for weeks stopped fighting. They came together and exchanged whatever they had on them as gifts, and sat down and had food and coffee with each other. They talked and shared family pictures with each other. After Christmas was over they refused to fight each other as they were now friends. Both the American and German Military found out what was going on and had to move these troops somewhere else, and away from each other, to start fighting. Do you think that would ever happen with these guys? F no! In 50 years that Al Quaida guy may be walking with a cane, but he will still want to kill you. In 80 years he may be pushed around in a wheelchair, and the only thing he can eat is apple sauce through a straw, but he will still want to kill you. And he will never care if he dies doing it cause that is the greatest thing he can do. Martyrdom to him ensures his infinity. Their main motivation is to die taking out as many people as they can. It is all these guys know. They are raised to believe this stuff from a very early age before anyone would ever understand the concept of right or wrong. What is that saying? An enemy that is not afraid to die is the most dangerous enemy of all.


Ah, I see. So all the time Bin Laden was funded by the US Government was, what, a blip? I suggest you take a look here:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html

The US funded the Jihad against communism, they encouraged it and now we are ALL paying the price for it. And not all terrorists are raised to be terrorists, otherwise how would such an organization ever start? The simple fact is that, while what you say can I'm sure be applied to SOME terrorists, many are simply idealists, patriots with no other way to fight against what they see as the oppressor. I have said this before, but the simple, and very uncomfortable, fact is that many of those you label Terrorists are Patriots for their own country. I do not agree with their methods, I do not support them in any way, but I am not so blind as to attribute their actions to so simple a motivation as "they are just wired that way".


So back to my point. I have been expecting this for years. Hell, I have gotten into many an argument with people in the 90's telling them this is coming. I was called racist and every name in the book. I wasn't saying "these fricken blankety blanks!" I was simply saying that this thing is coming and we better be ready for it. When 9/11 happened I was not as shocked as most people were as I had been expecting it. Knowing what I knew and as prepared for the coming Jihad as I was, I was actually surprised it didn’t happen sooner.

I went to look at the pics cause I wanted to see the product of the enemy so that I could confront it and know that this is the reality of the nature of the enemy we are fighting. And we can not cower away from it no matter how painful it is. But I do think, and I know I am going to get yelled at for this, that the only way it will end is with nuke’s. I think they are going to do either a biological or nuclear attack on the US, or one of our allies, and the world will realize that this thing and these people have gone far enough, and the middle east will be laid wasted from nuke’s. I am not talking one. I think the US, Russia and China will band together and send nuke’s and turn the entire are into a glass lake. At that point consideration will not be on the millions of innocent’s that is killed. Consideration will be on the fact that in order for the rest of human civilization to go on, and since we know they are in that are, we just don’t know where they are in it, to take the whole are out is greater for the global common good than the innocents killed en masse. Like I said, I know that I will get yelled at in posts and how can killing innocents be the answer, yada yada, yada. But trust me, what these idiots have in mind to do next is something that will make 9/11 look like q walk in the park. And when that happens, the world, in collective unison, will decide to take them out in the swiftest and most expedient manner possible. And the decision will be made without hesitation. Make no mistake. We are fighting evil in its truest form. And when evil rises, you must not shy away from destroying it no matter painful it is. There will be casualties, but evil has to be destroyed.


The first time I read this I felt physically sick. You ARE a racist, sorry but that's the only way you could possibly justify this. There are over 300 MILLION people living in the Middle East, and you would lay waste to all of them to POSSIBLY kill a few terrorists? You would make the Holocaust look like a Sunday picnic and all so, what, you could stare at your celling at night and think "I'm safe"? This is ridiculous, not least because your logic is horribly flawed. By nature terrorist cells are widely distributed. You said yourself that those that committed the 9/11 attacks lived in the States, so logically you'd have to nuke the US too. What about Afghanistan, that's not a middle eastern country?

And think, just for one fleeting moment think, what do you believe the reaction would be of all those from the region that are living in other countries? What do you think the reaction, for example, of Israelis living in the US would be? "Oh, you turned my entire country, my family, and the entire basis of my religion into a smoking hole, but that's okay because this is the land of liberty." This would throw the entire world into the end game, you are talking Armageddon to kill a handful of people just because you're scared!

I was thinking about it this week. Do you think people complained and wanted us to get out of World War 2? Hell yeah. There where protests. We don’t hear about them cause there wasn’t 5 million news channels reporting on them 24 hours a day but they did happen. But the bulk of the people back then knew that they had to sacrifice to defeat evil. My god, back in World War 2 there where food rations, and a whole hell of a lot of inconveniences placed on our grandparent’s or parent’s. But you talk to them and they will tell you that they knew that they had to live with all of the inconveniences to get the job done. Now the stock market takes a dip from something going on in the war and people start bitching. Do you think we had a balanced budget during WW2. Hell no. Do you think the dollar looked good in World War 2. F no. We were soaking in debt. But the people knew they had to accept this as their reality to get the job done. Countries complained back then at us too. I don’t even want to talk about France back then. We lost a lot of boys back then, more in a day then we have in this war so far, but the public knew that no matter what, the job needed to be done. If we acted back then the way we are now we would have never won that war. You know why our grandparents where like that. Cause they were pissed off 24/7 to win no matter what it took. December 7, 1941 we got pissed off and we didn’t stop being pissed off till the war was over. And the fact is that the terrorist thought that doing that would have the same effect that the Italy train bombing did. It would make people scared and want to give up on the war. Cause they are watching us him and haw and bitch in the news with ourselves about it. But what they forgot is the same thing that Japan forgot. Don’t piss of Americans. Hitler knew this. He did everything in his power to keep us from getting into World War 2 cause he knew what we were not only capable of doing, but willing to do once we were pissed off. When Japan attacked us he got pissed at them because he knew we where now going to get into it. He knew that once we got pissed off that we would never stop till the job was done. I feel the way the way a lot of people who have seen this feel in the fact that we think it needs to be shown on TV. It needs to be shown in every gory detail in the newspapers. Why? As graphic as it is, people need to be shown it because they have this ability that if they don’t see something then it isn’t real for them. If it isn’t real for them then it is safer for them. They are comfortable because it didn’t effect them personally. This is not the way we need to be. I guarantee if every person saw that clip today there would be none of this BS protesting. None of this we need to pull out. People will be forced to confront it and say “We need to do whatever it takes to wipe these SICK F***S off of the f***ing plane!” We as a country need to get pissed off! And I don’t mean just pissed off, I mean F***ING PISSED OFF! Pissed off to the point that we don’t care anymore. Pissed off like they where pissed of during WW2. 9/11 pissed us off to some extent, but since it was our first encounter with it, it was more of a shock and a waking us up out of the fog of our so called comfortable existence as Americans and put us into the reality than to piss us off. And we have gotten complacent because it happened almost 3 years ago. It pissed us off for a week and then half of us remained pissed and half of us went on with our lives as if it never happened. These things like 9/11 where happening before, but they were happening somewhere else so it didn’t effect us. It was a 2 minute segment on the nightly news and that was it. It didn’t piss us off. Someone on the net said 5/11/04 will be known as the third day that will live in infamy. Pearl Harbor was the first. 9/11 was the second. Nick Berg was the 3rd. I believe historians will look at it that way too. We need to look at the pics because we need to get pissed off. Hell I made my friend who was always arguing with me that we need to pull out and let the whole thing mellow (as if that would work) and now he is pissed off and wants to see it through to the end. And remember some of the 9/11 terrorist had been living here for years, and even with the comforts that we have here they never turned from their plan to do 9/11. Not one of them went "You know we get to watch cable, and eat pizza and do whatever we want. We get to go to nightclubs and party and have fun. Man this is nice." Not one of them. They got it in their mind set that no matter what they want to kill us. And we have to get it in our minds that no matter what we have to kill them. That is the only way to win this damn thing. We got to play it the way they are. We got to get pissed off. Cause only then we will see it through to the end with no hesitation. I am rambling and this whole thing probably makes no sense to anyone, but what I am saying is that everyone in our country needs to see it to finally come to grips with the fact that what we are fighting is evil, and we must not stop until it is exterminated completely. Everyone needs to see it to get pissed off. And we don’t need to get just pissed off, we need to get F***ING PISSED OFF! Terrorist’s will not be handled with a treaty. They wont be handled with a pull out. The only way they will be handled completely is through their complete and utter animation until every one of those wacked out mother f***ers are dead.

You keep missing the point, and as it's been made so many times I can only assume you are doing so on purpose. Nevertheless I will try, one more time, to spell this out for you as clearly as I can. People are NOT saying the "War on Terror" should stop. I cannot think of a single person who's expressed that opinion. However the war in Iraq is NOT (and in truth has NEVER BEEN) about terrorism. There were no WMD's, Colin Powell himself has said there is no concrete evidence to support an al-Qeada link and the whole sorry endevour has been managed with breathtaking incompetence at every turn. It is THIS that people object to, it is the fact that if anything this has taken attention AWAY from the terrorist problem. It has destroyed, utterly destroyed, any credibility the US had to lead the world on this and flushed the massive wave of sympathy and support from the international community following 9/11 right down the toilet.

Comparing this to World War 2 is a false analogy. When fighting a country (or several in that case) then the entire population needs to be up in arms. You quite simply need their labour and their courage both supporting the war effort and on the front line. Fighting terrorism does not require this, it requires tact, subtlety and patience. What is required from the population is trust in their government to do the right thing and prevent attacks and courage of a much different sort. It is the courage to not let terrorism affect our lives, it is the courage to stand up and say "No. No I will not let someone else make me live in fear of what might happen. I will carry on as normal and to hell with them." Hate and fear are weapons, weapons that are at the very core of terrorism and doing what you suggest here would only make the terrorists the stronger. Understand, without some form of popular support terrorist organizations grow progressively weaker until, eventually, they die out. Hate only leads to death, of innocents as well as the guilty, and that in turn will only make it all the easier for these organizations to recruit. As for this being the turning point... look to history, this is turning into another Vietnam. The numbers are not so great but they do not need to be as the far more public view of this war is doing just the same damage to the US and its allies. It is time to rethink, to come up with a reasonable exit strategy for Iraq that ensures, above all else, that it's people are protected and that the countries own interests are put ahead of its 'liberators'. It is time to refocus efforts on the terrorists where it should be and it is time that we the people demanded this of our leaders.

[MrMacphisto]

Sadistic did actually bring up a good point that when an American gets killed, a lot more media attention results from it, but then again, let's look at the facts....

First: America is the third most populated country in the world. We're way behind China and India, but with estimates of 300 million people (including illegal immigrants) in this country, we're quite large.

Second: America has one of the most powerful militaries in the world. Note that I didn't say THE most powerful, because that depends on the kind of war being fought. We have far better weapons than China, but we'd probably lose in an all out land war against them. Anyway, getting back to my point, our military might gives us a lot of political clout.

Third: We have one of the strongest economies in the world, so a lot of countries depend on ours for trade and investment. Once again, this results in more political clout.

Fourth: We own a ton of media organizations. This is probably the most telling fact of all. Because we have so many media outlets at our disposal, inevitably, everything that happens in our country or to our citizens is thoroughly broadcast throughout much of the world.

Unfortunately, this might seem to convey the image that we think too highly of ourselves in comparison to much of the world, but really, this is simply a result of our economic success and large population. I'm sure the Netherlands, Britain, or any other country would operate in much of the same way if they were in the same position. Then again, I would hope they wouldn't put such an idiot in power during times like these....

[kis123]

Originally posted by Strider
Then,just out of curioisity.Why in the hell have we gone to so much trouble if this was the goal?If it was just about oil,wouldn't it have been far easier to make a sweetheart deal with Saddam and pressure the UN into lifting sanctions in return for access to some of the oil fields?That's what Russia and France did.As it is,the oil infrastructure in the country is being sabatoged almost daily and western contractors don't even want to go to the place.

As BOFH66 said earlier, the oil is only a part of it. Who's being sent to Iraq to rebuild the country? Not Iraqi citizens, the ones who should be part of the process. They're too busy starving, sick, and reeling from the after effects of the so-called War on Terrorism. So who's getting paid to rebuild Iraq? Let me help you with this one, BIG AMERICAN BUSINESS who could care less about anyone outside of their inner circle. If they cared about our American people, would they keep sending our jobs overseas and sending us to the poorhouse? Where is a laid off 50-something going to find a job to support his family? Maybe he can work at the airport for 10.00/hr. Or flip burgers for 6-7.00/hr? While we're struggling for the answers to those questions, do you think Bush, Chaney, or any other big business supporters are struggling? Hell no!

I bet you're one of those people who thinks only the terrorists are getting killed over there, don't you? Many an innocent Iraqi citizens have been killed in the name of their so-called freedom. It gives no excuse for what happened to Nick Berg, but thousands of Iraqi die every year as well as in other war-torn countries. If we're involved in a war, we should expect some US deaths and casualties.

Why do we exchange one dictator over another in that country? We allowed Saddam to be in power over there along with every other bloodthirsty dictator that has been put into power. That is one of many reasons why the middle east, not just Iraq, hate us. The US has been involved in Iraq politics for many years. Their people are sick of it.

[leafstk]

Why not put this whole thing to rest.... all agree that the circumstances in Iraq, and indeed in many other third world countries, are tragic. We can't possibly understand how they feel unless we've been in their shoes, it would be arrogant to think so. Likewise, its quite a dilemma for us on the outside looking in, because we truly are concerned for those people and question the role of the current US foriegn policy, as well as other western nations. As a Canadian, I can understand its a very tough time in America, but we're not cozy up here either. I feel for those on both sides of the fence. I'm afraid the worst is yet to come, I hope I'm wrong.

[Strider]

Who's being sent to Iraq to rebuild the country? Not Iraqi citizens, the ones who should be part of the process.They're too busy starving, sick, and reeling from the after effects of the so-called War on Terrorism. So who's getting paid to rebuild Iraq? Let me help you with this one, BIG AMERICAN BUSINESS who could care less about anyone outside of their inner circle.

Well,the reason Western companies are the ones getting Iraqi reconstruction contracts is the somewhat obvious fact that there are no Iraqi construction firms vying for them,as under the Ba'athists all major industry was controlled by state ministries.To say Iraqis are not involved is completely innacurate as they're hired to work on these projects.I'm not exactly getting what you'd be advocating as an alternative.There is no Iraqi construction and services industry as of yet,so,I can only conclude that you'd believe no construction and decaying infrastructure is somehow prefarable to infrastructure built with Western funds.

Why do we exchange one dictator over another in that country? We allowed Saddam to be in power over there along with every other bloodthirsty dictator that has been put into power.

I see.We 'allowed' Saddam to be in power.So,does this mean you're only regret is that we didn't take him out sooner and that if 5 or 10 years ago we had bombed the hell out of Iraq you would have approved of taking him out then?Of course you wouldn't have.So please,don't throw out specious arguments like that.

I bet you're one of those people who thinks only the terrorists are getting killed over there, don't you?

No,I don't actually.But thank you for informing me what I think.

Look at the "big-business" part of the equation. The oil industry (or perhaps more accuratley, the Oil Export business) is important but it is by no means the only business in Iraq. There is a huge ammount of money to be made in contracts to repair the local infrastructure, in providing services necessary for daily life, and for security.

There are situations like this all over the planet.I'm not seeing what you'd suggest as an alternative.Simply let the infrastructure decay even more?

Just to give some food for thought, Vice President Dick Cheney is currently being paid "up to" $1 million dollars a year from Halliburton as part of his severence package following his resignation as Chief Executive to go work for Bush.

Yes,when you leave the private sector for government service you negotiate a severance package.So what?This is relatively normal.Is anyone who leaves private industry for government automatically only going to be loyal to their former place of business?If that's the case only professional civil servants should be allowed to run for governmental positions.

Halliburton have, to date, recieved contracts in Iraq worth up to $2 Billion dollars, and that's just for reconstruction to the oil industry there.

First off,there's very few companies in the world that do what Halliburton does.Second,ask virtually anyone in the construction services industry to name the best companies in their field and they'll likely place Halliburton in the top 3.Lastly,even if they were completely incompetent,it would be irrelevant as Halliburton has a contract with the DOD itself to provide logisitcal support in war zones,this came about at the end of the Cold War due to the need to cut away some of the bureaucracy in the Army,focusing mainly on the engineering divisions and the decision to modernize and streamline the military.The contract's come up twice for renewal in the past decade,and both time's,Halliburton's won it in open bidding.

And remember, this is all US money right now, it doesn't take into account any funds Iraq itself has or will have from its own exports. Make no mistake, while it is not the sole reason for this war, the fact is reconstruction efforts and money from Iraq are reinforcing the US economy right now. This is a well-established pattern in the US and elsewhere

So,you're suggesting what?Saying"see ya,wouldn't want to be ya,"and leaving the country to implode?You seem to be implying that because people are going to be making money off of reconstruction efforts,then the reconstruction efforts themselves are a bad thing.

[kis123]

Strider;

The US has been involved in middle eastern affairs for many years. If they were so interested in rebuilding the country, why not then? Is it because it wasn't as lucrative as it is now? Or, did someone realize that they could diversify their gun and amunition selling portfolio to contracting? If Iraq has no construction industry, who built the homes and businesses there? It wasn't America? Why does our country run to another country's aid and ignores the domestic disaster going on right here at home? Someone who can make more money somewhere else won't stay at home very long, will they?

Don't let what you see on tv fool you either. There are many middle eastern citizens who are very capable of becoming a part of the rebuilding process. The pictures that you see on tv are usually of the poorer parts of the country. There are people who are educated, intelligent, talented, and capable enough to do many things to help take control of their own country. There are some that have been educated in the United States. They have the ability to do it, but are not part of the process. You don't get to see those things on tv. It's just like the pictures of the starving people in other countries. They don't tell you that not far from there are some of the richest people in their nation. The media likes us to focus on the negatives so we can become comfortable and complacent, not asking any questions and not rocking the boat. Are these contractors training the people to do the jobs? I wonder how many Iraqi are being hired to do work in their own country? That's what rebuilds a country, not "big brother", Uncle Sam, or "massa" dictating what will be done in someone else's country without a say or participative role in it. It's not much better than slavery. If someone tried that here in the US, there would be rioting in the streets (you know,similar to what is happening in Iraq right now).

As far as your comment about Saddam being taken out sooner is concerned, here is my response. We had no business having him there in the first place. When we had the Gulf War, it was supposed to take him out of power. Why didn't we? Why did Norman Swartzkoff (pardon the spelling) get into trouble after he went on camera saying (paraphrase) that if you're going in to get Saddam out, stay there until you get him out? He retired shortly after he made those comments, probably forced out. So, yes, since we let him in there in the first place, we should've taken him out sooner.

You can continue to believe as you desire. The good news is that you're in America and (presently) have the freedom to do that.

[BigJim]

Originally posted by Sadistictickler
I have merely 1 thing to say:

eye for an eye

sad for the guy, but even as a non-muslim don't condemn the act. Hate me for it, I don't care, it's just the way I feel about it.

Well I condemn it. I think the perpetrators of this act are incredibly childish if they think a "dramatic" act of defiance like this is going to do their cause any good whatsoever. These idiots have put the campaigns of reasonable human beings who share their point of view back months if not years. These supreme arseholes are fighting fire with fire and later on they'll complain about the amount of heat.

My feelings are very much with the family of this man. As far as I can tell he never caused anyone in Iraq any harm. There's another point against these fools. They're pissed at America and they choose to show how adult and civillised they are by committing an act of murder against someone who's in no way responsible for any of their gripes. Really gives you respect for them, doesn't it? :disgust:

I don't hate you for your views ST. Not matter how marginal or unpopular someone's personal opinions are, they are entitled to them and are entitled to express them. I do disagree with you though. I don't see how anyone can consider the decapitation of an innocent to be a justified reaction; no matter how wronged by the US these people consider themselves to be. They've just made themselves look like petulant, sadistic children in front of the whole world.

[BigJim]

Originally posted by leafstk
I'm afraid the worst is yet to come, I hope I'm wrong.

No, you're not wrong. Sadly, the worst is very much still to come.

It also follows though that what comes after will be very much better. Believe it or not, it's a wonderful time to be alive.

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by Strider
Well,the reason Western companies are the ones getting Iraqi reconstruction contracts is the somewhat obvious fact that there are no Iraqi construction firms vying for them,as under the Ba'athists all major industry was controlled by state ministries.To say Iraqis are not involved is completely innacurate as they're hired to work on these projects.I'm not exactly getting what you'd be advocating as an alternative.There is no Iraqi construction and services industry as of yet,so,I can only conclude that you'd believe no construction and decaying infrastructure is somehow prefarable to infrastructure built with Western funds.


How about open market contracts that aren't dominated by American firms for a kick off? The White House has, or had as of May last year at least, only invited a hanful of US companies to bid for reconstruction contracts. This is meant to be a democracy, a free and fair economy, doesn't look that way to me.


Yes,when you leave the private sector for government service you negotiate a severance package.So what?This is relatively normal.Is anyone who leaves private industry for government automatically only going to be loyal to their former place of business?If that's the case only professional civil servants should be allowed to run for governmental positions.

You don't see even the slightest conflict of interest here? You don't see any possibility that, when handing out these contracts, Haliburton would have recieved an extra point or two from Cheney?


First off,there's very few companies in the world that do what Halliburton does.Second,ask virtually anyone in the construction services industry to name the best companies in their field and they'll likely place Halliburton in the top 3.Lastly,even if they were completely incompetent,it would be irrelevant as Halliburton has a contract with the DOD itself to provide logisitcal support in war zones,this came about at the end of the Cold War due to the need to cut away some of the bureaucracy in the Army,focusing mainly on the engineering divisions and the decision to modernize and streamline the military.The contract's come up twice for renewal in the past decade,and both time's,Halliburton's won it in open bidding.


And of course Haliburton has such an amazing record on financial matters, not to mention the rights and safety of its workers. :rolleyes: They've overrun budgets time after time, overcharged the US on more than one occasion, have a terrible record on worker rights... Oh yes, and don't forget Cheney's disdain for Saddam (and other rulers / countries currently on the 'evil' list) didn't stop him from doing business with Iraq during the time he was Chief Executive at the company. Basically they used third party companies to sell equipment and services to Iraq. There's more info here: http://www.sfbg.com/reality/04.html

And for a good overview on Haliburton, I's suggest this link: http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/profiles/haliburton/haliburton.htm

So,you're suggesting what?Saying"see ya,wouldn't want to be ya,"and leaving the country to implode?You seem to be implying that because people are going to be making money off of reconstruction efforts,then the reconstruction efforts themselves are a bad thing.

Of course not, this was a discussion on why the US went to war, not the current situation. In fact, where the HELL did I ever suggest such a thing? Seriously, where did such a thought come from as I certainly don't see even the suggestion of pulling out. The fact is though this IS a well-established pattern, using military might to damage another country and then profiting from the rebuilding exercises. Frankly, if I had my way rebuilding contracts would be placed on the open market, tenders judged by a neutral panel (or as near as it is possible to get) with no connections to any of the companies involved and jail time for anyone found to be less than honest. All contracts should be on a strict "cost+ 5%" rule, overruns paid for out of the bidding companys' own pocket and a strict code of conduct with regards all workers employed should be enforced, including union representation. More importantly however, when such sums of money are used to pay for reconstruction efforts it should not be used simply to pay for firms to come in and do the work. Rather it should also fund the reconstruction of national industries so that the country in question has a chance to stand on its own. Maybe we'd see less questionable military actions if this were the case.

http://www.aoya81.dsl.pipex.com/TMW-04-14-04.gif

[Haltickling]

Besides, reconstruction contracts for Iraq were handed out to Halliburton (and a handful of other companies) as early as 2002, on a no-bid basis...

[ticklebutton]

Originally posted by BigJim
Well I condemn it.
BigJim and Hal, nice to see you back again!

Button :bubble:

[Neutron]

Try reading a bit of the history of the region, then talk ok?

WE the USA built that region, supllying many factories virtually free.

That region couldn't develope until they had a stable supply of fresh water. The 5 largest distilling plants in the world, supplying over 84% of the fresh water in the Middle East were al built by the US AT COST! So it's not about economics. Even with control of the oil fields the price is set by contrct with the REGION, not Iraq itself

Also, no I have no sympathy for the family, they first accused their own country of trapping that greedy idiot over there, then when the real facts come out do we hear an apology? NO!!

I have a LOT of friends putting their ass on the line over there everyday, and every few months I go there for FREE and do the same thing in areas that would give you nightmares.

So when some idiot kid gets killed because of his own greed, I'll not shed any tears.

Tron

[BigJim]

The sun will always shine, the wind will always blow, pharmeceuticals from Eli Lily will always fuck your body up, the Earth will always turn, the stars will always shine and Tron will always make me smile.

Dammit Mike, I missed ya while I was away! :)

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by Neutron
Try reading a bit of the history of the region, then talk ok?

WE the USA built that region, supllying many factories virtually free.

That region couldn't develope until they had a stable supply of fresh water. The 5 largest distilling plants in the world, supplying over 84% of the fresh water in the Middle East were al built by the US AT COST! So it's not about economics. Even with control of the oil fields the price is set by contrct with the REGION, not Iraq itself


Okay, I know it's getting late on a Sunday night and I'm probably missing something, but how exactly does this disprove that there were no economic considerations in invading Iraq? They way I read it it's a nice media quote (which reminds me, any chance of a link on this?) but has nothing to do with the question asked. Note that the issue was not the oil export business (which is indeed set by the region, or OPEC to be more specific) but the reconstruction and other contracts offered to a hand-picked group of US companies.

Also, no I have no sympathy for the family, they first accused their own country of trapping that greedy idiot over there, then when the real facts come out do we hear an apology? NO!!


Why should they apologize? The fact is Nick Berg was detained by either Iraqi or Coalition forces (no-one seems to quite know which) and thus missed his flight out of the country, so yes they are right to argue that this did INDIRECTLY contribute to his death. As for what happened after that, I can't blame him for refusing the offer. After being held for two weeks without access to legal council (and considering what we have heard about the fair and just treatment of prisoners in Iraq who knows how he was treated during that time) and accused of terrorist links there must surely have been doubt in his mind over what would be waiting for him on the other end of that flight as, for all he knew, it could be making a stopover in Cuba.

I have a LOT of friends putting their ass on the line over there everyday, and every few months I go there for FREE and do the same thing in areas that would give you nightmares.

So when some idiot kid gets killed because of his own greed, I'll not shed any tears.

Tron

But I thought the capitalist dream was what drove the very spirit of the American economy? Of course it has to be pointed out that, according to the US administration, the bad things we see on television are a tiny, tiny fraction of the true story and that virtually all of it is good news. So if that was what he believed then why shouldn't he go over there? You make it sound as if he were simply out for himself whereas he's, well here, go read:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3707735.stm

Mr Berg's father Michael told the Associated Press news agency that his son had previously travelled to Ghana, where he taught villagers how to make bricks.

He said his son had given away most of his food while he was there and returned with nothing more than the clothes on his back: "That's the kind of passion we're dealing with here."

William Scott, a close friend from high school days in Pennsylvania, told the New York Times that Mr Berg was "extremely friendly, but also talented and driven".

"He was an adventuresome type and always wanted to help people, even when it was difficult," Mr Scott told the newspaper.


This was a man who, while looking for a business opportunity, was also by all accounts a kind, gentle (and it must be said somewhat naive) individual who would go out of his way to help those in need however he could. Frankly I wish there were more like him in the world, it'd be a better place.

[leafstk]

Such a brutal slaying was not this kid's fault... he was there trying to help and make himself useful to a worthy cause. Whoever detained him, the family shouldn't be expected to apologize at all. Reports confirm he was originally picked up by Iraqi forces because he's also a Jew and had an Israeli stamp on his passport. They thought he was a spy, this alone may explain the FBI questioning his family. But does this release the US from any wrongdoing here? I think not... this kid should have been sent home immediately, if they suspected anything suspicious in his character. How he could have ended up in the hands of terrorists after the US had full knowledge of his situation, is unforgivable... you can't blame the family here.