For the sake of clarity in following who said what, other folks' posts (one person did the first one, the other two were by someone else) are blockquoted (i.e., indented) and mine are not. In my posts, where I quote what someone said to reply to it, the quote is italicized.
Original post:
[Another poster] brought up the similarity between the murder of Nick Berg and that of Charles Horman ("Missing" movie) in Chile. I found it interesting, that in both cases, the fathers and sons were on opposing sides regarding our government's involvement. I'm pasting an email from Liberation News.(The attached article said that "the family firm of beheaded American Nick Berg, was named by a conservative website in a list of 'enemies' of the Iraq occupation." Nick's father, Michael, was known to oppose the war and was on the list along with the firm, Prometheus Methods Tower Service. The site in question is FreeRepublic.com, populated by a collection of reactionary nitwit mouth-breathers known as Freepers. The article proposes that the Freepers' enemies list got into the hands of officials in Iraq, who mistook Nick Berg for Michael Berg and so arrested him.
"One of the clues the FBI and CIA is studying is the large gold ring Zarqawi is wearing on his right hand, giving off a glare several times during the six-minute tape." - NBC News
Yet a male wearing a gold ring is forbidden by Islam. Nick Berg was held as a prisoner by U.S. puppet forces for 14 days immediately before his beheading. Perfect timing for a CIA black-op distraction.
It goes on to suggest that Berg was "cruelly murdered soon after that release, like many others around the world who suffer such a fate at the hands of state-condoned death squads - sometimes just hours after their release from official detention." It also called Musab al-Zarqawi "a flimsy propaganda creation" who "came to our attention in January, 2004" as the supposed author of the quite possibly forged letter to al-Qaeda bewailing the fact that the US was winning in Iraq.)
My reply:
I'm sorry folks, but I think this goes right past cynicism, flies past paranoia, and lands right in lala land.
The arguments remind me of the type I find on websites denying the moon landings ever happened based on supposedly "telling" details and "obvious" mistakes in lighting and shadows that any photographer could have told them were neither.
I've heard about the "too light" hands. The video is not only of low quality, it's horribly over-exposed, which would make everything lighter. (Note, for example, that the head of the man wearing the white hood almost disappears into the background and the highlights on Berg's jumpsuit are completely washed out.) Significantly, the "too light" hands are still darker than Berg's face.
Now we have the "forbidden gold ring." The person who reads the statement and executes Berg does indeed appear to be wearing a ring. How in hell anyone could tell it was gold as opposed to any non-banned material like silver, copper, etc., is beyond me. (Yes, I know that's what was reported. My statement stands.) And in fact, while it's generally agreed that wearing of gold rings is forbidden for men, that belief is not universal; some scholars insist that it is regarded as distasteful but not actually forbidden. One such discussion is here.
The "convenient timing" argument also doesn't impress me unless someone can tell me a time this would not have been useful to the troglodytes. Yes, it could serve to distract from Abu Ghraib and the growing evidence of torture at other sites (although, happily, it hasn't succeeded), but with things going as badly for the Bushites as they have been in Iraq, at what point would this have not served as a means of distraction? An argument about timing that could be applied literally at any time is no argument.
As for why he was picked up, Nick himself told his family that he thought it was because his Jewish name and his Israeli stamp made them suspicious. He was also investigated by the FBI in 2002 after his email account was used by an acquaintance of Zacarias Moussaoui (no connection was found), which could have been what made the FBI suspicious of him in Iraq. I frankly find either of those much more credible than the idea that the Iraqi police are checking out the Freepers' "enemies list."
And I find it hard to credit breakfornews.com's analysis when they say "Al-Zarqawi came to our attention in January, 2004." Zarqawi has been around for several years. I first heard of him about two years ago, when he was accused of the assassination of a US diplomat. Prior to that, in 2000, he had been indicted in abstentia in Jordan. In his 2003 speech to the Security Council, Colin Powell cited him in his attempt to link Iraq to al-Qaeda. In the fall of 2003, the UN froze his financial assets. So if he only came to breakfornews.com's attention in January, then attention is what they have not been paying.
Finally, I don't want to hear any responses along the lines of "Are you saying the US couldn't do such a thing? Don't you know about...." That's not the issue at hand. The question is not could US intelligence agencies commit murder to further a political cause - I say they could - but did they in this case - and I say they did not.
Second post:
There are other things that make me suspicious, aside from the arguments you listed. The fidgeting of the two men to the far left and far right to me suggests they've never done anything like that before and don't know how to act. That's just my own gut feeling, though and not evidence of anything.And my reply:
The things that DO seem suspicious to me are these - Nick Berg was at one point examining communications towers in Abu Ghraib (the suburb of Baghdad at least, however we don't know if he was actually in the prison compound.). He e-mailed a friend back in the States about having taken photographs from the towers. Yesterday I got a link to an article from the NYT. In this article there is specific mention of "an important communications antenna stood broken and unrepaired". Right there is a reason for Nick Berg to have been in the compound because that was his line of work.
Next point, so many people have spoken about the orange jumpsuit. If he was released on Apr. 6th, where was he between that day and the day his body was found? He called home on Apr. 9th so at some point he should have been able to change his clothing, and if he was being held by someone, why would they have allowed him to call home if the intent was to horrify Americans as much as possible?
Next, have a good look at the still shots of Nick Berg in the chair as he's shown in the opening scenes of the video, and then go look up the photos taken inside the corridor of Abu Ghraib depicting some of the prisoner abuse. Abu Ghraib Prison was painted when the Occupation forces took it over (most likely to relieve the minds of those being held there that this was not the Hussein Regime, not that it seems to have made much difference.) The point being that would have been military supplied paint and it's not available to just anyone. You cannot buy paint used in military buildings from your local paint shop, it's very specifically produced in massive quantities for the use of the military in its buildings. The walls are the exact same color.
Look for the chair Nick Berg is sitting in. You'll find identical chairs in Abu Ghraib prison photos, including one of the corridor abuse shots (there are two of those, one from each end of the corridor). In the same corridor abuse photo there is what appears to be an orange jumpsuit lying on the floor along with another dark colored garment. Now that in and of itself is nothing since we all know the orange jumpsuits are standard American detainee clothing, but that one and one barely discernible being worn by a prisoner slightly visible inside a cell are the only two of these suits in evidence.
Then there's the fact that the US Government has lied, repeatedly, about having had Nick in custody prior to his death when there are numerous documents and correspondences confirming it. Why?
My theory is not that this was a planned, staged execution by US black ops or whatever. I suspect Berg was killed by accident during interrogation and someone came up with a way to use it to promote sympathy for our actions in Iraq. He seems entirely too calm and lacking in fear through the entirety of the video until he's knocked to the ground. He speaks calmly at the beginning, and while the speaker is reading he sits quietly with no signs of fear for his life or safety. He looks at the camera the whole time and wiggles around a little bit but seems completely unafraid. If he were a Jew in the hands of Muslim Extremists, he ought to be utterly terrified.
I remain quite thoroughly unimpressed. Ultimately, much of this seems to me to be the result of the desire to have the CIA and/or military intelligence be guilty (and thus the assumption that they are) because it makes it easier to oppose US policy if nothing bad can be pinned on its opponents. Sorry, kids, the world ain't that simple.
The fidgeting suggests they've never done anything like that before and don't know how to act.
Maybe they hadn't. But as you yourself note, what does that prove one way or the other? More to the point, their "fidgeting" looked to me like the normal shifting around that someone will do when standing in one position for nearly five minutes while someone else reads a statement. I suggest you video yourself doing the same and see how much you fidget.
there is a reason for Nick Berg to have been in the compound
If true, it would mean what? Besides that, was he contracted to the military to do such work at military sites? Or are we to assume they would hire someone off the street?
the orange jumpsuit
Ah yes, the jumpsuit, the one that supposedly proves he was in US custody when the video was made. In addition to my not buying into the notion that the CIA is that astoundingly inept in making a fake, what makes us think that rebel groups could not get orange jumpsuits? Indeed, what makes us think they would not have done it deliberately in order to link him visually to imprisoned Muslims?
I actually don't understand the timeline questions you raise. Why would you assume a jumpsuit he might have been wearing while held by Iraqis/US was the same one as in the video? He himself said he was released on April 6 in emails to his family. Not good enough, could have been a forced cover? He was seen between then and April 10 both by a Chilean journalist friend and the staff at the hotel where he was staying.
the chair and the paint
For pity's sake, it's a flaming chair. There is nothing unusual or unique about it. As for the paint, I don't see how you can tell anything about it other than in either case it's very roughly - by no means "exactly" - the same color. And why in hell would military-issue paint not have been available to others? Just because it's bought in quantity doesn't mean it's some special formula. "You cannot buy paint used in military buildings from your local paint shop." Perhaps not, but that hardly means that commercial users can't get it.
Second: Was Abu Ghraib repainted with military-issue paint? How do we know? Did the military actually do the job or was it one of the private contractors, who would obtain their own supply of paint, perhaps even locally? Perhaps the paint used was very common locally.
Finally, at least for now, I'll give you one more alternative: Grant everything you say and conclude the video was taken inside a military building. The sound quality of the video makes it clear that it was taken in a large, empty room. Is there such a place at Abu Ghraib? Certainly, some rebels have from time to time captured some outposts, police stations, government buildings, and so on. Can we say with any confidence at all that none of them had large empty rooms that had seen a coat of military-issued paint?
He seems entirely too calm and lacking in fear
Calm, yes; lacking in fear, no. He looked rather like someone trying to stay calm. And our expectation of fear, of terror, is based on the fact that we know what happens next. Unless he spoke Arab fluently, there's no reason to think he knew what was coming.
I say again, the attempt to prove the video was a US intelligence setup strike me as an example of "conclusion first, reasons after." Could US intelligence murder someone one? Yes. Could Zarqawi murder someone? Yes. Given that undeniable premise, Occam's Razor tells me that the video is real.
PS - As for the business of who was holding Berg after his arrest, I think there's a lot of finger-pointing and CYA going on. My suspicion is that, as they've done before, US agencies are hiding behind technicalities (think "we never said 'imminent'") and that while technically he may have been in the custody of the Iraqis, they were just holding him for the US until we said it was okay to let him go. So we can say "he was never in our custody" while still being in effective control.
Third post:
[Y]ou may be reading and responding on the belief that I have some entity in mind to blame for the Berg death. I don't. I won't say it's a US coverup or propaganda maneuver, but I also won't say it is who official reports claim.And, once more, my reply:
Basically my sole premise right now is that facts are not adding up to what the "officials" claim happened. Something just ain't right. What that "something" is is open to speculation but the fact that the whole sordid mess seems fishy is pretty common consensus from all I've seen and heard.
The reason I replied to your post was not so much an effort to convince you the article was accurate but to say "Don't close the door on questions raised.".
The chair...I don't place a lot of emphasis on it really, except for the fact that it can't be sold in retail outlets because it's under a recall order. That suggests to me anyone who bought that specific model had to have done so with Government approval or Government turning it's head to the deal and was done for a purpose OTHER than retail sales.
The CIA and/or MI? Hell I don't know! I just know it doesn't look like what it's professed to be.
I'll make this my last comment so we don't keep going around on this.
you may be responding on the belief that I have some entity in mind to blame for the Berg death. I don't. I won't say it's a US coverup or propaganda maneuver
Fine - however, since every doubt you raised pointed to US involvement in his death and you said "I suspect Berg was killed by accident during interrogation and someone came up with a way to use it to promote sympathy for our actions in Iraq," it seemed a pretty safe assumption.
facts are not adding up to what the "officials" claim happened
There are two tracks here, one about his arrest and confinement, the other about his kidnapping and murder. For the first part, I agree that something isn't right; he said the Iraqis arrested him but the US held him, the US says the Iraqis held him, and the police chief of Mosul says they never arrested him and doesn't know what it's all about.
The other track is the validity of the video and the question of who killed him. The two tracks are not the same, but many people seem to conflate them, as in fact you did with your timeline question about his arrest, release, and the jumpsuit. I agree there are valid questions about the first track. I have seen nothing that gives me pause about the second.
Don't close the door on questions raised.
The questions have to be of sufficient strength to open the door in the first place. And in my view, they're not. (Remember, I'm talking about the video.)
The chair...it can't be sold in retail outlets because it's under a recall order. ... anyone who bought that specific model had to have done so with Government approval or ... turning it's head to the deal and was done for a purpose OTHER than retail sales.
Or a much simpler and more logical explanation that requires no conspiracies: It was obtained before the recall. And for my own knowledge, how did you identify the exact model of chair and how did you know that it's under a recall order? What order, issued by who, when?
it doesn't look like what it's professed to be
I think the video (and, one last time, that's what I'm addressing) looks exactly like what it's professed to be.
Footnote: I have no doubts that the sort of argument I faced here will be picked up on by folks like the Freepers and pushed widely as another example of how lefties are the "blame America first" crowd and therefore being antiwar is to be anti-American. I maintain, as I said above, that the real impulse is not to blame the US but to avoid blaming others. It's not a new thing; I remember the same thing happening during Vietnam, when there were people who would avoid criticizing North Vietnam or the PRG because to do so, they feared, would appear as an endorsement of US policies.
But I don't see it that way at all. Crime does not justify crime, evil does not justify evil. A May 13 editorial in "Baghdad," the daily newspaper of the Iraqi National Accord (quoted by the Iraqi Press Monitor for May 14) says
"Abu Ghraib no justification for killing the American hostage"Abu Ghraib does not justify the murder of Nick Berg. The murder of Nick Berg does not justify Abu Ghraib.
The abuses in Abu Ghraib prison have served the interests of terrorists. Two days ago, an American was killed under the pretext of revenge for prisoners. Thus, what we expected came true: namely, that the wave of violence might open endlessly in spite of reassurances made by the American president and other officials that such abuses would not be repeated. To avoid the wave of hatred, we think all prisoners who were not convicted must be released, especially given news reports that say 60 percent of them were arrested by mistake. Besides, Iraqis' participation in supervising prisons is a prerequisite. As to the hurry in trying those responsible for abuses, it is indisputable. As we condemned abusing Iraqi prisoners, so do we condemn killing the American hostage.
It just ain't that difficult to grasp, people.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment