This guys parents are just Bush haters. They can't beat the thought that their son gambled with his life by going over there and lost that gamble. I'd read that the FBI warned him about going over there and he went anyway. Even after he went there, he was told by U.S. civilian authorities that his life was in danger and they offered to get him out of there yet he refused. I'm sorry he died but I think that's risk that people willingly make when they make the decision to go there.
Some questions about American's beheading
- Thread starter doctorgonzo
- Start date
Wow! Yet again I must point out that noone attempts to address any of the content in the post except one person, Idlane. Idlane no I have not lived in the Middle East and if you have and you say it is entirely possible that these murderers were white with blonde hair then I will take your word for it.
For the rest, it is very easy to call someone crazy,insane,looney if they simply have a differing opinion than yours. I could follow behind all of your posts and call you juvenile names without discussing any thoughts you put in your posts. But I don't do that to any of you do I? That is asinine and helps noone. I have no idea who killed this man and neither do you, yet merely suggesting that something is wrong with this tape is borderline insanity?
For those who think I am so insane, instead of calling me silly names, answer these questions for me and I will certainly admit that I am wrong. Especially those of you who have actually seen the tape.
Why would a man who is obviously about to have his throat sliced not make any attempt to avoid it by wriggling or writhing around?
Why would a man who just had his head cut off not bleed at all? Why is there no blood on him or the man who murdered him?
Why is a man who was supposedly freed from U.S. custody April 9th still wearing his orange jumpsuit?
Why does all the audio in the tape have to be dubbed in?
Still the question looms, how is it that these men can retaliate against an action they don't even know about yet?
And if I am so crazy why are mainstream media reports coming out asking the same questions? I guess if someone doesn't agree with you that means have a tin foil beanie.
For the rest, it is very easy to call someone crazy,insane,looney if they simply have a differing opinion than yours. I could follow behind all of your posts and call you juvenile names without discussing any thoughts you put in your posts. But I don't do that to any of you do I? That is asinine and helps noone. I have no idea who killed this man and neither do you, yet merely suggesting that something is wrong with this tape is borderline insanity?
For those who think I am so insane, instead of calling me silly names, answer these questions for me and I will certainly admit that I am wrong. Especially those of you who have actually seen the tape.
Why would a man who is obviously about to have his throat sliced not make any attempt to avoid it by wriggling or writhing around?
Why would a man who just had his head cut off not bleed at all? Why is there no blood on him or the man who murdered him?
Why is a man who was supposedly freed from U.S. custody April 9th still wearing his orange jumpsuit?
Why does all the audio in the tape have to be dubbed in?
Still the question looms, how is it that these men can retaliate against an action they don't even know about yet?
And if I am so crazy why are mainstream media reports coming out asking the same questions? I guess if someone doesn't agree with you that means have a tin foil beanie.
For the record, your post doesn't merit any thoughtful response. Your touting the lack of thoughtful response as some sort of moral victory over the evil conservatives on the board is as farcical as your original post.
I'd love to see your list of "mainstream media" sources asking the same questions. That ought to be as entertaining as the first post in this topic.
Check the front page of the NY Times online (www.nytimes.com). Under the leader "U.S. Officials Failed to Protect Slain Civilian, Family Says", the Times presents a timeline that pretty much lays waste to your theory. It's titled: "Graphic: The Whereabouts of Nicholas E. Berg".
[This message has been edited by The Tusk (edited 05-13-2004).]
I'd love to see your list of "mainstream media" sources asking the same questions. That ought to be as entertaining as the first post in this topic.
Check the front page of the NY Times online (www.nytimes.com). Under the leader "U.S. Officials Failed to Protect Slain Civilian, Family Says", the Times presents a timeline that pretty much lays waste to your theory. It's titled: "Graphic: The Whereabouts of Nicholas E. Berg".
[This message has been edited by The Tusk (edited 05-13-2004).]
"yet merely suggesting that something is wrong with this tape"
This is not what you did, gonzo.
Sadly the parents sound like typical Americans today who blame everyone and everything except those responsible. He went over there on his own free will. "US officials" had no obligation to protect him. I also heard that they were about to file suit because "US officials" had detained Berg and then they later complained that "US officials" did not know where he was after they let him go. Apparently to them "US officials" are just there as babysitters to keep track of their son. I can't comprehend what it's like to lose a child especially in that manner but if I did, I would blame those that killed him not our government.
This is not what you did, gonzo.
Sadly the parents sound like typical Americans today who blame everyone and everything except those responsible. He went over there on his own free will. "US officials" had no obligation to protect him. I also heard that they were about to file suit because "US officials" had detained Berg and then they later complained that "US officials" did not know where he was after they let him go. Apparently to them "US officials" are just there as babysitters to keep track of their son. I can't comprehend what it's like to lose a child especially in that manner but if I did, I would blame those that killed him not our government.
gonzo:
Why are you accusing others of belittling you and calling you names?
You're the one that calls yourself "gonzo".
------------------
"I've never been quarantined, but the more I look around the more I think it might not be a bad thing." -- George Carlin
Why are you accusing others of belittling you and calling you names?
You're the one that calls yourself "gonzo".
------------------
"I've never been quarantined, but the more I look around the more I think it might not be a bad thing." -- George Carlin
*warning-SOME GRAPHIC STUFF, AVOID************************
.
.
.
.
.
OK. For some reason I'll respond.
I think Nick Berg was already dead when they decapitated him. Why you ask? Probably because he was a big SOB and they didn't want it to take 20 mins. They may have tried to do it once, and had to do a do-over. It probably isn't very easy to decapitate someone from the front with a knife, particularly if they are alive. I think most of the anomalies you spotted are explained by this theory. What stood out to me was that his mouth and eyes were stuck in that gaped position, while his body didn't really move naturally, even right at first. I think the other guys were flailing him around to try to make it look like he was fighting for his life (cameraman was doing a lot of flailing as well). I also noticed that it was odd that there was no blood or screaming by the victim (the screaming sounds like a woman's voice, for sure--maybe she was watching a relative be executed at an earlier date? Taken from an execution-audio-archive? Why would there have been a woman screaming in arabic?).
Regarding the descrepancy of dates, as you have pointed out, the tape appears to have been redubbed. I would wager to guess that Berg had already been executed, and that the little speech they give (behind their hoods) was changed.
.
.
.
.
*****************************
END WARNING
[This message has been edited by Jack Bourbon (edited 05-14-2004).]
Thanks Jack. Your theory sounds perfectly plausible and is probably the most likely one given the circumstances. You use your brain and I respect that.
I think the Berg's anger was a result of their having had emails from American government officials saying Berg was in U.S. custody in Iraq shortly before his murder, followed by a denial of the same thing from other U.S. officials in the administration. It was announced Berg wasn't in U.S. custody, but was being held by the Iraqis. As if the Iraqi officials were not under the control of the U.S. The government spokesman later folded, and admitted the Iraqis were under American control.
Now it looks like Berg may have been picked up by the Iraqi police at the suggestion of U.S. officials, something to do with a possible terrorist connection he may have had while a student at Oklahoma.
I don't fault the government for having him picked up, or investigated. I don't think he had any business over there wandering around by himself looking for work.
I do fault the government for their initial denial that he was under U.S. control while being detained in Iraq. Is it too much to expect a straight answer from this administration on something?
When the prison abuse surfaced, we hear from this administration that it was limited to seven low ranking soldiers. What bullcrap.
When it became known that Berg was detained in Iraq before his murder, we hear from this administration: "We didn't have him, the Iraqis did, although we talked with him three seperate times while he was under their control." More bull.
I didn't watch the murder. I'd like to think they killed him first, then took his head off. I would expect someone being decapitated while alive with a knife being used as a saw to bleed a whole lot.
The most plausible explanation I've read about why the filmed murder was released was to try to trigger a strong response from the Americans in Iraq that would complicate an already difficult situation.
The most noticeable reaction to the murder video seems to be that it temporarily pulled Rumsfeld's bacon out of the fire.
Now it looks like Berg may have been picked up by the Iraqi police at the suggestion of U.S. officials, something to do with a possible terrorist connection he may have had while a student at Oklahoma.
I don't fault the government for having him picked up, or investigated. I don't think he had any business over there wandering around by himself looking for work.
I do fault the government for their initial denial that he was under U.S. control while being detained in Iraq. Is it too much to expect a straight answer from this administration on something?
When the prison abuse surfaced, we hear from this administration that it was limited to seven low ranking soldiers. What bullcrap.
When it became known that Berg was detained in Iraq before his murder, we hear from this administration: "We didn't have him, the Iraqis did, although we talked with him three seperate times while he was under their control." More bull.
I didn't watch the murder. I'd like to think they killed him first, then took his head off. I would expect someone being decapitated while alive with a knife being used as a saw to bleed a whole lot.
The most plausible explanation I've read about why the filmed murder was released was to try to trigger a strong response from the Americans in Iraq that would complicate an already difficult situation.
The most noticeable reaction to the murder video seems to be that it temporarily pulled Rumsfeld's bacon out of the fire.
Forgive me if I'm repeating information; I haven't had time to go through all the posts; I heard reports that Mr. Berg said his son has paid for the sins of Bush and Rumsfeld. So Mr. Berg hates the Republican administration. Join the club.
Then, he later says that the hooded murderers didn't know what they were doing; that his son was their best friend.
Anyone want to speculate on what's going on there? Do we have a terrorist sympathizer in Mr. Berg?
Then, he later says that the hooded murderers didn't know what they were doing; that his son was their best friend.
Anyone want to speculate on what's going on there? Do we have a terrorist sympathizer in Mr. Berg?
This is some of the best unintentional humor I've seen here in a while. Jack Bourbon buys into gonzo's conspiracy theory a little bit and gets a pat on the head and a gold star to take home to mommy from the president of the local Oliver Stone fan club. Nice.
As for the questions about blood or the lack thereof, watch the video again. There's an enormous puddle of it underneath Berg's body. Additionally, Berg was bound hand and foot. That combined with no clue on your part (or mine) about his physical state prior to the murder means that any conclusion you draw about being killed beforehand, etc. to be as meaningless as the rest of your tripe.
Interestingly, but not suprisingly, you didn't decide to take on the timeline discussion again. Nutjob.
As for the questions about blood or the lack thereof, watch the video again. There's an enormous puddle of it underneath Berg's body. Additionally, Berg was bound hand and foot. That combined with no clue on your part (or mine) about his physical state prior to the murder means that any conclusion you draw about being killed beforehand, etc. to be as meaningless as the rest of your tripe.
Interestingly, but not suprisingly, you didn't decide to take on the timeline discussion again. Nutjob.
I don't have strong feelings either way as to whether he was beheaded while alive, alive and drugged, or dead. For his sake I'd like to think he was killed beforehand. A dead body will leak a large pool of blood. A live neck being sliced would produce a regular fountain of blood, I would also expect.
The anger from Berg's father is over the top, but then I haven't experienced what he has.
The first response from the Bush administration was to deny that Berg had been under their control in the days before his kidnapping and murder. They tried to pass the buck to the Iraqis. Berg's father knew this was not accurate, and had proof. I think that provoked him to say things he shouldn't have said.
[This message has been edited by Chukker Veteran (edited 05-14-2004).]
The anger from Berg's father is over the top, but then I haven't experienced what he has.
The first response from the Bush administration was to deny that Berg had been under their control in the days before his kidnapping and murder. They tried to pass the buck to the Iraqis. Berg's father knew this was not accurate, and had proof. I think that provoked him to say things he shouldn't have said.
[This message has been edited by Chukker Veteran (edited 05-14-2004).]
jdpas29
All-American
he may have been set up by our gov't to spur the morale for the war effort among americans here at home. i dunno.
it seems awful strange that this fellow has ties to a couple of different terrorists... accidentally.
OOPS!
and his dad sounds like a burnt out commie. sorry, but it's the truth.
i don't think this fellow was innocent. i believe he was interrogated by US forces and found to be a terrorist sympathizer. the US then deemed him fit to be dumped off into the hands of al qaeda knowing that, being a Jew, he would be slaughtered.
i don't think, however, that the US knew that the whole thing would be videotaped and viewed by the world.
jdpas29
All-American
"Why does all the audio in the tape have to be dubbed in?"
i can help you on this one, gonzo. the audio had to be dubbed because the footage was probably taken with a little hand held digital camera. most digicams don't have audio input...especially the older ones. that would also explain why it had to be cut in several places and pieced together.. as digi-cams can only take so many seconds of video per memory card.
[This message has been edited by jdpas29 (edited 05-14-2004).]
i can help you on this one, gonzo. the audio had to be dubbed because the footage was probably taken with a little hand held digital camera. most digicams don't have audio input...especially the older ones. that would also explain why it had to be cut in several places and pieced together.. as digi-cams can only take so many seconds of video per memory card.
[This message has been edited by jdpas29 (edited 05-14-2004).]
I think peeps are getting overly technical here. The truth is, if you watch the video, it's very hard to tell exactly what's going on, except that someone has jimmied with the original tape in some way. It doesn't matter the details. Al Quaeda killed the poor kid, and that's that, IMO.
I find it unlikely that Berg was linked to terrorism. . . there aren't many Jews who are in support of the Jihad. The Jewish Community would conspire to bring down the Black Man by selling him crack before they would support people who want to burn Israel and all of its civilians.
RE the father, the poor guy most likely got the run-around by people who a) didn't know what was going on, and b) were too worried about other things to really care. If I had been the Sr Berg, I'd have been lucky to have held back so much resentment for the US gov't after learning my son had been beheaded on the Internet while unlocatable/unreleasable just prior to that.
I find it unlikely that Berg was linked to terrorism. . . there aren't many Jews who are in support of the Jihad. The Jewish Community would conspire to bring down the Black Man by selling him crack before they would support people who want to burn Israel and all of its civilians.
RE the father, the poor guy most likely got the run-around by people who a) didn't know what was going on, and b) were too worried about other things to really care. If I had been the Sr Berg, I'd have been lucky to have held back so much resentment for the US gov't after learning my son had been beheaded on the Internet while unlocatable/unreleasable just prior to that.
On the subject of the "light" hands, which apparently prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to doctorgonzo that this was carried out by Americans, it is inconsequential. The video appears to be shot with a consumer grade video camera, in a room lit with fluorescent bulbs and sunlight from a window. This mixture of lighting would undoubtably affect the appearance of color in the video.
------------------
"There are few talents more richly rewarded with both wealth and power, in countries around the world, than the ability to convince backward people that their problems are caused by other people who are more advanced."
Thomas Sowell
------------------
"There are few talents more richly rewarded with both wealth and power, in countries around the world, than the ability to convince backward people that their problems are caused by other people who are more advanced."
Thomas Sowell
Trending content
-
Thread 'Good luck dealing with a pandemic, depending on this administration...'- TIDE-HSV
Replies: 8K -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Latest threads
-
ESPN: Reports: NCAA rejects TTU's appeal for QB Sorsby- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 1
-
-
ESPN: Sankey scoffs at notion of SEC-B1G super league
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: NCAA D-I Cabinet tweaks five-year eligibility plan...
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: C. Nussmeier, brother of ex-LSU QB, picks Georgia
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: N. Dakota gets probation for tampering violations
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0