Um, Unusual?

What makes you think Iraq had ANYTHING to do with 9/11?  This should be interesting, because I’ve heard a lot of shitty excuses so far.

Unusual, I’m not sure why you singled me out in your response to this thread, but I think you have a few misunderstandings regarding the way I feel.

You seem to use him as a cause for your dissatisfaction with the administration- Let’s not forget he was a person here- an innocent person that was slaughtered by a bunch of sociopaths.

I cannot help but believe that Rumsfelds s statements and actions concerning Iraqi prisoners helped lead to their abuses. He seems to consider them part of the terrorist war, in spite of the fact that Saddam s regime was a separate situation. The Berg execution was carried out in retaliation to those abuses. Once we invaded Iraq, we created the very marriage of causes Rumsfeld said existed before. We set up a staging ground for terrorism there. Now it s being reported that Rumsfeld:

authorized the expansion of a secret program that encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners to obtain intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq.  As the Iraqi insurgency grew and more U.S. soldiers died, Rumsfeld and Defense Undersecretary for Intelligence Stephen Cambone expanded the scope to bring the interrogation tactics to Abu Ghraib, the article said .
A former intelligence official quoted in the article said Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, approved the program but may not have known about the abuse

Intelligence told to do what you want
The rules governing the secret operation were “grab whom you must. Do what you want,” the unidentified former intelligence official told the New Yorker.
Rumsfeld left the details of the interrogations to Cambone, the article quoted a Pentagon consultant as saying

“This is Cambone’s deal, but Rumsfeld and Myers approved the program,” said the Pentagon consultant in the article. 

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4855930/

Did he remain committed to Geneva Conventions to craft his procedures? Perhaps not. He may have felt the Geneva Conventions mandates could justifiably be set aside to conduct the war on terror. Bush had already intimated terrorists would be placed in a separate category with his impassioned speeches and support of the Patriot Acts. Is it really so surprising that once we bent the rules, those rules could mistakenly (or not) be applied to other combatants?

Basically Brock, don’t offend me with your disbelief that Americans weren’t horrified by the actions/mockery of the prisoners. That’s just plain insulting.

The article I quoted suggested that some republicans feel too much ongoing attention is being paid to Abu Ghraib, but I didn t say that Americans, in general, aren t horrified by these events. It seems to me that Americans are greatly concerned, and that does not bode well for those who would like this all to just go away. Now that the Bush Administration is being bitten for lack of intelligent planning, some would rather the spotlight would shine somewhere else. Too bad for them!

And don’t talk to me about the US not being responsible- do you honestly believe that if we were “responsible” these terrible terrorist acts wouldn’t be going on?? Then what would be your justification for 9/11?

I think we have been responsible for too many events that have led us to where we are now. I m not giving permission for terrorists to behead us, but I m not naive enough to accept that terrorists are doing terrible things to us for no reasons they can rightly justify.
Nicholas Berg s beheading was reported to have been carried out by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of an Islamist terrorist group that has claimed responsibility for numerous attacks on coalition forces in Iraq. If you want to speculate that the present administration has been doing (without failing) everything it must to capture extremists like Zarqawi, and to win the war on terror consider that:

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

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

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

Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn t do it, said Michael O Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone.  Here s a case where they waited, they waited too long and now we re suffering as a result inside Iraq, Cressey added.

And despite the Bush administration s tough talk about hitting the terrorists before they strike, Zarqawi s killing streak continues today.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

The region mentioned as the site of the labs had been outside Saddam s direct control since the end of the 1991 Gulf War. Being something of a no-man s land , populated with Kurds who were highly resistant to Saddam s regime and sympathetic to Islamists, it would be a stretch to assume he was being cooperative with this terrorist group.

If I used Nicholas Berg s horrible demise as an example for my cause he certainly shouldn t be ignored. His murder should serve as an example of one more price American citizens have had to pay to support the invasion of Iraq. The war on terror - well that was a separate war till now. Now Iraq is just another controversial chapter in that more infamous battle story.

First things first- Joshman3D-
I am not stating that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11..I was mearly citing the example b/c Brock was questioning our responsibility.

Brock- I singled you out b/c you were interesting.  I think you have very different beliefs from my thinking which is good, I’m always game for a good argument

Anyway, I know the New Yorker article you speak of and I know that there has been controversy over its truthfulness.  So I cannot really comment on questionable journalism- I know we can’t always believe in what we read. 

The point I will comment on is your responsibility argument and how you point out that “would have, could have” saved the day theory if we knew “this” or did “that” I am not supporting this admistration for some of its decisions, so please do not insinuate that I believe the Bush admin is doing “everything it must to capture extremists like Zarqawi” Do you honestly think that this is one of the only terrorist groups out there that the admin has held off eliminating?  That would be naive enough to believe. 

And if the government was to eliminate this group, would you feel better about the Admin?  It makes me wonder exactly where you stand- I think the consequences of that would be more than just one beheading.

Regarding the comment,"His murder should serve as an example of one more price American citizens have had to pay to support the invasion of Iraq”
With or without the invasion of Iraq this is a TERRORIST group and do not give me the excuse that our involvement is good enough reason, b/c it isn’t a good enough reason.  In fact, it was our non-involvement that has caused some of the other attacks against the US.  I don’t think you are understanding this vicious cycle of terrorism- correct me if I am wrong, but in your reply, were you excusing a terrorist due to “justifiable” actions? B/c in my posting, I can’t put justifiable and

terrorist in the same sentence.

Unusual you stated that “in fact, it was our non-involvement that has caused some of the other attacks against the US.” This is a valid point to be made by itself but not for support of invasion of Iraq.

I was just wondering ‘unusual’ how do you define terrorism? Recently, New York’s anti terrorism legislation was used to prosecute criminal gang member because their actions falls within the definition of ‘intimidate or coerce a civilian population.’

Is the term terrorism a political labelling meant to evoke certain feelings and knee-jerk reaction like the terms unpatriotic or ‘unamerican like activities’? Is use of force for a political aim that the society in question does not approve, considered terrorism.

What I am focusing on is not so much the Nick Berg issue but the rampant use of the terrorist label recently in manner used by unusual. I would assume the capitalized ‘TERRORIST’ word is meant to act as a flash to our minds to evoke such reaction. Is the word terrorist the new communist? Such that any one who claims to justify the actions of a terrorist must be so far out of the spectrum that their viewpoints can be discounted. After all once one succeed in labelling the other side as a terrorist, there is no longer any point in examining one’s own action simply because terrorist actions can never be justified, right. The problem is if this causes one to become ignorant of the cause or source of the problem.

The issue of justification and the source of the problem are separate. I notice that whenever someone mentions about the source of the problem, the counter comes in the form that, that particular action is never justified. The argument does not work both ways, one may sometimes use the cause or source of the problem to justify the action taken but whether one can or cannot justify the response, does not mean that the source of the problem does not exist.

Unusual, the problem with your arguement is that you’re saying that Brock can’t use Berg’s beheading as an example of why we shouldn’t be there.  Unfortunately for you, it IS an example.  It’s an example of why we shouldn’t have ever gone there in the first place.

Secondly, you seem to think that Brock is “justifying” the terrorists’ actions, yet I see absolutely evidence of that in ANY of his posts.  If anything, he’s trying to explore WHY anybody would remotely feel compelled to do anything so graphic, disturbing, and terrible.  What Les was trying to say in his post was that NEITHER side is right, that this war is being fought without purpose anymore save that of our ideologies of “don’t let the other side win”.  IT’S ALL BULLSHIT.  That’s what we’re trying to get across, but you don’t seem to understand that.

By the way, how can you be “enjoying a good exchange of ideas” when you get a bad taste in your mouth from the sheer “stupidity” of another person’s views?  Sounds a little severe to me.

It’s an emotional issue and difficulty is naturally a part of the process when one tries to discuss the whys and rights and wrongs of it.

I abhor violence of any kind and Berg’s death hit me hard, as did the pictures of the Abu Ghraib abuses. But, if it had been my 26 year old head in that clip, I would want my death to mean something much more than just “they’re animals and we are fighting the good fight” because, like it or not, we chose to represent behavior that is unjust when we invaded and subjugated Iraq.

As for 9/11, it happened for many reasons that we, the general public, are not privy to. Nor can we place it’s underlying causes in a coherent exact overview - Not if we hope to achieve the view we seem to prefer. We are answerable, more than we wish to be, to it’s victims and loved ones, whether we understand fully why or not. People don’t methodically crash planes into skyscrapers and military complexes for no reason. Nor do they commit suicide bombings for no reason. We need to try to understand what their reasons and motivations are for the extreme things they do if we hope to come through this dark period in man’s history, smarter, healthier and more peacefully motivated. 

As for Rumsfeld and his ilk, I have no clue why, if he thought methods used at Abu Ghraib were justifiable, that he couldn’t see that these events would become public and that the public would be titillated. All the perverse elements that Americans find interesting are there - nudity, violence, torture, authority, etc. Do these leaders even think? More often than not, this administration and it’s war-makers manage to do that which will backfire and make them seem foolish and desperate.

So, while I cannot fully justify the terrorist’s actions, I cannot fully justify ours either. The only thing I know for certain is that we are not helping ourselves when we choose war over peace. If we “speak” with weapons of mass destruction, subterfuge and invasions, we’ve guaranteed ourselves that overt and violent responses will be offered us in return.

Thanks Josh, for the support of my statements. I may not say what I want to say as well as you do, but I’m taking notes.

C’mon Brock, everyone knows it’s because they hate freedom!

C’mon Brock, everyone knows it’s because they hate freedom!

Nuh-uh!  It’s because they don’t believe in Jebus the Lord & Savior!  Don’t you know ANYTHING, Spocko!?!?

No problem, Brock.  Just now, I’m reading what I wrote, though, and I left some pretty hideous typos there.  Come to think of it, that’s probably one of the most hurriedly written, horribly planned entries I’ve ever had on this site!  Hell, ‘least it got the point across. Heh heh…

9/11 fucked everything up.  Really bad.  We’ve degenerated into this kind of neo-McCarthyism because of this whole “terrorism” subject that saturates our media.  Osama Bin Laden completely succeeded in what he wanted to do.  He enraged us, frightened us, and in our recovery, we became more politically divided and racially and religiously intolerant.  The truth is, we were always under the scope of these people, and most likely we always will be so long as they have brainwashed people to carry out their plans.  But what we’re doing here is self-destructive and completely pointless.

We’ve invaded a SOVEREIGN NATION under FALSE PRETENSES, and instead of investigating how we got into this situation, we change our motives completely around!  No, we didn’t invade because of WMD’s!  We wanted to LIBERATE these oppressed poeple!

Nobody over there believes it, and not a single freethinking educated person in this country should believe it either.  Just as those terrorists are being brainwashed to fight for an ideology that they’ve been raised on, so are we.  Between Nick Berg and the prisoners at Abu Gharaib, we are comparing the penultimate examples of (ta DAA) TRIBALISM.  So PLEASE, if anybody makes any sense of this arguement, read Les’ entry, and come to your freakin’ senses.

I don’t care if I do sound like a pacifistic hippy.  We can’t fight through this.  We need another solution.

Unusual said - Do you honestly think that this is one of the only terrorist groups out there that the admin has held off eliminating?

I don’t know WHO they’ve eliminated - They won’t tell me most of their secrets - something about “in the interest of national security” and other such drivel!

If you talk to THEM - our THEM, not their THEM - ask them to update me on how we are coming with this war on terrorism. I’ve helped kick in over 143 billion dollars to assist them and I’m worried that I don’t have a warranty on my co-owned war machine. Plus they’re asking for more now and I can barely even justify what I’ve bought already.

Plus, please tell them that since we’ve paid our soldiers and their officers to take thousands of pictures and some videos of naked, abused Iraqis, I’d like to go ahead and see the pictures. Not that it will thrill me in any way. I just feel better knowing that supporting my troops also means understanding what I am supporting.

Oh, and those uranium tipped munitions and cluster bombs - I didn’t ok those. Please have them removed from our arsenal! They are killing, possibly even beheading, innocent persons as we speak.

If you have a spare moment Unusual, you might want to look at this.
http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/uranium.html

Jebus, Joey, and Marge, it was faked!

(well, maybe)

Spocko, the ONE thing that actually convinced me to watch that horrible video was the accusation that it was faked…

(don’t read if you have an aversion to gory detail)

Dude, it wasn’t.  No way.  No fucking way.  I’m sure anyone who is being slowly decapitated sounds pretty much the same.  You could see him moving during that guy’s “speach”, and you could see his convulsions as they cut through the rest of his neck.  Regardless of who, they beheaded SOMEONE.  Pretty obvious to me.

Perhaps you need to watch the full version… one of the versions I saw looked pretty fake, but when I saw the full version, it was pretty obviously real.

Josh: It looked real enough to me too. Just passing on a link I came across which brings up some interesting points.

PS. I still think he was a major dumbfuck for going over there!

The one aspect of this that I cannot get out of my head, and the first thoughts that came to mind when I heard of it, were how convenient this is for those who resent the press Abu Ghraib is getting - How odd and timely this event is. This will turn American sentiment back against the adversaries of our efforts to Americanize Iraq.

Then I thought > Man those terrorists are stupid as hell! Here they’re finally seeing large numbers of Americans reconsidering the reasons why we are in Iraq and how our presence is being manifested and they just HAVE to go and create a public execution video. Dumb terrorists!

So, I wonder - Who stands to gain most from this ghastly public slaughter of an American? Terrorists who seem desperate to punish us for our mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners or those who allowed, apparently even ordered, the abuses there and elsewhere in Iraq and Afghanistan, and wish, more than anything, for these highly inflammatory depictions of Abu Ghraib’s “democracy in action” to go away? If the shock “news du jour” can undo some of the damage the other stories caused - that’s so much the better.

We don’t yet know who’s ultimately to blame for Berg’s death. I simply know I have this funny feeling about it all.

If you go to the page Spocko linked to and click on “Main Page” and scroll down to Berg’s articles you’ll find other interesting clues to ponder.

My tinfoil hat is on, then off, then on again.  I haven’t quite committed myself to tightening the chin-straps, but I can’t help but think there’s something fishy about this.  After the Jessica Lynch drama, I’m afraid the Bushlettes will stop at nada to get an upper hand.
Harper’s is chock full of good stories this month, not directly relating to Berg & Abu Ghraib, but interesting background information about the USA’s relations with Iraq.  The Leo Strauss story is worth the price of admission, patriots.

More about the conspiracy!

Forgive me Josh ;o)

LOL, dude, I’m not getting mad.  I’m just saying it seems a little preposterous.  But since I’ve been reading up on those theories, it seems some people are saying that there are clues to prove it was a conspiracy.  Of course, I think that idea’s a little sketchy too, but it’s interesting.

But to say it was fake right off the bat is just presumptuous.

Just someone elses thought on the conspiracy theories:

where are the records of bergs company?

nick berg had started his own company called prometheus methods tower services. when searches were conducted in his state to find this company, they came up empty. you are not required to file for a business i.d. but usually, you cannot exist without one. there is absolutely no record of his company, either through state records, online, or anywhere else. he also worked on the radio tower at the very prison in the center of the abuse scandal, however his company name can not be found on the list of approved u.s. contractors.

last year, the media ran national news stories about israeli spies infiltrating the u.s. phone companies. many people were arrested and charged with spying for israel, although israel officially doesnt spy on the u.s..

http://www.totse.com/en/politics/foreign_m...ies/168266.html
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...18/224826.shtml

in war-torn iraq, the phone systems were entirely hardlined. saddam required it. hardlined systems are the easiest to bug, and saddam loved bugs. these systems were heavily damaged during the war and needed repair. nick berg was in the country helping to set up radio and cell phone com towers, transmitters, etc. nick berg was also jewish and had recently been to israel. this leads to the next question…

was nick berg possibly an israeli spy?

bergs family claims that the u.s. military held him for 13 days, yet the military denies this, and claims that the iraqi police detained him. the iraqi police, however, deny holding berg as well. what is clear, is that at some point, iraqi police suspected that he was an israeli spy (his passport contained an israeli stamp, and is widely regarded as a no-no in iraq.) when he was questioned, he was found to have an anti-semetic book and a quran. this does not make sense. remember, he was jewish. was nick berg trying to understand the religion of islam and the hatred of jews at the same time? were these books required reading material? this leads to the next question…

was nick berg playing both sides, and caught in a double cross?

the f.b.i. questioned berg in iraq at some point, up to three times reportedly, also suspecting that he was up to no good. they asked berg if he knew how to make pipe bombs, or if he had ever been in iran. after questioning, they offered him a flight home and released him. he turned down the offer for a flight home, saying he thought it might be too dangerous traveling to the airport, but when asked how he planned to leave iraq, he said that he was going to travel by land to kuwait. this particular stretch of road is a dangerous one, even for iraqis. it is a haven for thugs and kidnappers. a westerner in jeans, t-shirt and ball cap wouldnt get too far. surely he would have known this?

nick bergs father, michael berg and nick bergs company name are on a ‘list’ at free-republic since 2003 as being enemies to the occupation of iraq, yet nick berg was a ‘bush supporter’. his father was not a supporter of the current administration, and has clearly made his position known on national news and radio broadcasts. he has stated that he blames the military for his sons death.

was there a deeper link between berg and 9/11 suspects?

nick berg had a connection with zacarias moussaoui, the only 9-11 suspect indicted by the the united states so far. nick berg let an individual on a bus use his email account and computer to send mail to various people, one of which was moussaoui, who then in turn, ended up with bergs email account password. strange. the f.b.i. thought so too, and questioned nick regarding his contacts. his name was known to the f.b.i. since as early as 2002.

finally the video itself leads to many questions…

http://www.holocausthumanity.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=32

I don’t know about MaryH but the more I have been reading (now including Brock’s post) the tighter my chin strap is getting. Too many odd things have been popping up surrounding the beheading video and Berg’s associations. Do you suppose that Berg is alive and well and has simply been re-patriated to Israel after a staged execution? Sounds extremely unlikely but then again…

I don’t know—a lot of the conspiracy stuff seems to be grasping at straws, wild-ass speculation based loosely on what information we DO have (like his plan to drive to Kuwait to leave the country—remember, he seems to have been in denial that he was in any danger the whole time he was there.  After being released from questioning, he might just have decided the worst was behind him and he went looking for one more adventure on his way home).

From the moment I read the shrieking about the chair, I had to laugh.  That is THE cheapest style of plastic chair you can buy anywhere; I had four of ‘em in Switzerland. I have the same style of chair scaled down for my daughter. Do you have any idea how many of them are out there and how popular they are?  Of course you would see them in prisons and in shoestring terrorist operations.  It doesn’t mean a thing.

It looks to me like Berg simply made a whole lot of errors in judgment.  He didn’t know how to fly under the radar in Iraq; he didn’t know that it’s not safe to get a stamp from Israel in your passport if you’re going to travel in other Middle Eastern countries; from everything I’ve read in the mainstream press, he just seemed to be a young guy who was out for adventure and walked into bad trouble.  (He was also stupid enough to give out his email username and password, and it got passed around to people he didn’t know, including Moussaoui.  People do stupid things with their passwords all the time; it doesn’t mean he had terrorist connections.)

People DO have a tendency to want to create conspiracy theories out of wholecloth whenever something hugely tragic happens (assassinations come to mind).  This doesn’t sound any more valid to me than the other ones.

I am both the least desiring of the label “conspiracy theorist” and most likely to want excessive verification of anything concerning Iraq and the current administration.

Over and over again I have witnessed the little and large manipulations given to news stories and the blatant ways THEY take iffy suppositions and dispense them to the public as fact, knowing full well that if a voice of authority or repetition doesn’t sway the masses, an appeal to emotions likely will.

I cannot imagine how anyone wouldn’t feel compelled to allow some suspicions concerning the death of Nick Berg. There are just too many aspects of this event that don’t flow and merge comfortably.

The timing of the event was the first thing that caused me to start wondering. How could it not? The orange jumpsuit, yellow walls in both Abu Ghraib and the video, the lack of blood (I have to consider this second-hand as I’m still too chicken to watch that part of the video) when he was beheaded, two different time stamps on the video, the out of sync-ness of the video, the fact that he worked in Abu Ghraib before he was detained, the discrepancies between what military and Iraqi officials say concerning his detaining, the fact that he was released one day after his family filed a federal suit but still didn’t manage to make it home, the FBI’s revelation that his email account was used by the “20th hijacker” of 9-11, and other equally interesting, though by themselves not outright damning, bits of information and visual evidence together encourage me to evince skepticism.

I don’t feel the least bit silly asking myself if this could be a cover-up of some sort, as I honestly feel, given all the little discrepancies, any conscientious person would or should.

To use an imperfect analogy - the best way to extinguish a fire is to use a large explosion - all of the oxygen available to the fire is then used up or cut off. Isn’t it possible that an explosive event was contrived, in hopes of quelling the Abi Ghraib firestorm? Do you see the same intense attention being paid to Abu Ghraib after the Berg event? Or perhaps we’ve simply reached “Torture Fatigue” and both stories have lost their abilities to excite us.

But why am I adding voice to the conspiracy pool of fools?...Because if this WAS an American sponsored spectacle...if the US is complicit in a meaningful way, we all are in much bigger trouble than we probably realize. If there is truth to these theories and Nick Berg didn’t die by terrorists’ hands, I’m afraid for us! And you should be too!

Some places you might want to visit (I’m just sayin’):

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_international&Number=1471708&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=21&part=1

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=2909

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/may2004/051104beheadsuscivilian.htm

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/bbs/message.php?message=322060&topic=3&showdate=

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/05/con04214.html

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=94&contentid=1244

Spocko deserves credit here. I was too afraid of looking foolish to make clear my suspicions.

Hi Brock, I couldn’t have said it better.
It takes a lot for me to believe this kind of thing. Unfortunately there IS a lot here to make you wonder.

Lot of eerie stuff, but how do you explain the timeline (which I have lost.) Didn’t Berg go missing before the situation at Abu Graib hit the fan?

I was already afraid for us.

If you folks don’t mind why don’t we take this over to the SEB Forum.
I opened a new thread in “News of Note”.

PS
Why don’t more people hang out over there anyway?
You get to have your own avatar and start you own topics - I’m diggin’ it…
[img=http://forums.jenkinsonline.net/uploads/av-91.gif]

Well gee, if Leonard Nimoy’s over there, maybe I should go.

To be honest, the forums don’t get the exposure the main site does so you don’t get as many and varied responses.

Still, I do hope The SEB Forums live long and prosper.