Please, please, don't try to tie the beheading with the torture

As the saying goes: two wrongs don't make it right.

The Iraqis really do not need an excuse to behead someone on live TV. They have done this before, in 1968, when they kicked out the king, beheaded him and his prime minister and paraded their heads on TV.

My concern is that this would give excuse to someone to forgo the Geneva convention, or any kind of western-style behaviour because "Hama rule." (see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=49989&mesg_id=49989)

Please, let's keep the two events separate. I would like to think that no one here, no one can find even a hint of justification for this barbaric event.

This is Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian tied to al Qaeda.

So - does anyone have a link to the arab site with the whole video? Where is the original?

http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/iraq2vediom.wmv

I clocked on it and got 404 error. Anyone have a copy anywhere?

additional link (the first one seems to be down for the moment):
http://www.soulsurvivors.net/Public/iraq2vediom.wmv

haven't seen you here lately. Been reading all you write at Truthout.

The stated reason is revenge for the torture, but if it's Zarqawi, he doesn't seem to need much reason to do anything. Furthermore, why was DIA holding Berg in early April without charges? It's as though DIA was ready to call Berg an enemy combatant. The whole story is weird and fishy.

One of the executioners read a statement: "For the mothers and wives of American soldiers, we tell you that we offered the U.S. administration to exchange this hostage with some of the detainees in Abu Ghraib and they refused. So we tell you that the dignity of the Muslim men and women in Abu Ghraib and others is not redeemed except by blood and souls. You will not receive anything from us but coffins after coffins ... slaughtered in this way." The men then cut Berg’s head off with a knife and held his head up for the camera.

If they're trying to turn Americans against Bush with this execution, they're stupid. These guys don't seem to understand the consequences of what they do. It has the exact opposite effect--if they really wanted to turn Americans against Bush, which I'm not so sure they really did want.

Now if they wanted to turn Americans toward Bush, this was brilliant.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1577936

he was in US custody in Iraq

free republic link in one post

There's lots that is truly weird about this execution. It's important to keep in mind--and I'm trying to tell this to myself--that this was not just a message for Americans, but, more important, perhaps, for Muslims. In that sense, perhaps it really was revenge for the torture and the deaths in custody of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

These were extremists (if it was as it is being portrayed). Don't go looking for logic. And I am not so sure how this will finally play out. One thing that many said about Abu Ghraib was that there would be hell to pay for anyone captured by these guys because of it. This is exhibit A of that premise.

They're using extremist logic, which isn't the same as normal logic.

These people, whoever they are, have goals and are working towards those goals. Thus they have their own sort of logic. They plainly stated that this action was in revenge of their brethren in that prison.

While their actions are illogical to any civilised person they certainly can be understood, and their goals and aspirations discussed logically. They think themselves freedom fighters no doubt, they have a very distorted religious fanaticism as well but they can be understood and thus they can be bargained with.

Based on the sentiment I heard before this incident, the Iraqis who executed Berg just guaranteed Bush will get WV's electoral votes. Given our reaction after 9/11, I don't understand what they thought they'd gain.

Actions like that just hardens the resolve and builds support in many areas of the country.

If they're Zarqawi's people, they're al Qaeda, which means they're international. Maybe even predominately Saudi!

TYY

TYY :thumbsup:

At this point, I don't think some Americans are interested in details. The keyword is Muslim. To them it doesn't make a difference if they're Saudis or Iraqis.

We're starting to see a torture backlash in that some feel that the Iraqis in the photos got what they deserved. It goes back to the seemingly unwavering split between Bush and Kerry. Let's hope the swing voters are more discerning.

TYY

they are trying to recruit more terrorists. If they are avenging the torture, what are the odds that many Iraqi's will suddenly feel grateful (rightly or wrongly)? What are the odds that this act of revenge has endeared many Iraqi's to the terrorist cause against the USA?

It is just a thought, not necessarily a theory.

The more suicide bombs they planted, the hardened the Israeli became to elect, again, Ariel Sharon who would not be more rigid in reaching any agreement.

Had they not, Ehud Barak would have been elected and a Palestinina state by now would have been a fact.

I am not trying to start an Israeli-Palestinina thread here, just to compare the stituations.

It was suggested that Al Qaeda may try something before the November elections - as it did in 2000 with Cole and in Madrid. Except, any such attack will assure - oh gag - the reelection of Bush.

In Israel, the occupying power wishes to wholly annex the land, rather than maintain colonial/imperial control. In such a situation it is difficult to force withdrawal through terrorist or guerilla tactics, because the occupying power has a greater vested interest in staying.

The Iraq situation is closer to the classic colonial/imperial occupation. In Vietnam, the VC and NVA could absorb military defeat after military defeat, because they only had to make casualties and other costs on the American side enough to encourage the US to cut its losses and leave. Same in colonial Africa, the American revolution and the IRA "long war" in England.

In fact, the IRA example is a good corollary to Israel-- the IRA realized bombings in Northern Ireland were ineffective because the Protestant Unionists had nowhere to withdraw to, and British casualties were not sufficient for them to withdraw military support for the Unionists. That's when the IRA started targeting London. The bombing campaign encouraged the British to negotiate with Sinn Fein. By the same token, realizing that, after years of bombings, unconditional British withdrawal was not in the cards, the IRA decided to make some compromises of their own.

Lebanon is another good example: Hizbollah was able to force Israel out of Southern Lebanon through a decade-long guerilla war. Why? Because Israel had no real designs on annexing Southern Lebanon, unlike East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Same reason Israel is willing to give away more of Gaza than the West Bank-- fewer Jewish settlements, thus less of an interest in staying.

Guerilla and terrorist tactics in Iraq most certainly can force US withdrawal, although it will likely take years (as in most anti-colonial wars)

with that.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Has anyone noticed that the executioners look a lot stockier and fatter than most arab terrorists do? Could these be Americans posing as terrorists? My gut tells me that there's something funny here.

All Muslim people are not thin and brown. Let's ease off the stereotyping. That's for everyone, not just you.

I know there are surely light skinned Muslims with beer bellies who are perhaps also terrorists. But ....

I've never seen any.

What I see looks like fat Americans. I am likely wrong - but they look to fat to me.

Time will tell. It's an event that is amazingly conveinient for Bush.

a setup -----like 9-11 super convenient for bushco ----- timing VERY suspiciously convenient for bushco----> no more torture questions or questions about 'necessity of war on terror'

shame and humiliation we imposed on the Iraqi people who are fellow Muslims. We have handed the terrorists a recruiting tool on a silver platter with the prison abuse.

The Iraqi citizens are not terrorists and I highly doubt the ones we abused were terrorists. They were innocent citizens. But, since they are Muslims and we shamed them in the horrific manner for their culture, the terrorists are obviously going to use this to retaliate. It is a terrorist action to revenge the prisoner abuse.

I believe revenge is very strong in the Muslim culture. I read in Newsweek months ago that if (for example) I shame a Muslim, 5 relatives of that person must avenge the shame. Can anyone elaborate or correct me if I am wrong?

It puzzles me that the individuals that murdered Berg said that they had offered to exchange him for some of the prisoners being held. That would seem to indicate that some of the prisioners were cohorts of the ones attacking us in Iraq.

And according to the Red Cross, 90% were detained without cause.

So by that logic, is it ok to torture and humiliate 90% to gain information on the remaining 10%? Torture them because they MIGHT be terrorist but might not?

We cannot continue to look at things only on the surface, or at what is obvious. And we can't always come up with conspiracies every time either.

This administration has proven time and again that it will do whatever
it has to, to keep power.

No we don't have proof that Mr. Berg was murdered by US agents, but we can't assume that those that killed him were Muslim either, just based on what has been shown. All we saw was a man being beheaded by someone.


Irregardless of who committed this murder, it was the act of terror.

Was to place the heads of the leaders of the ten clans on poles and parade them through-out the camp as proof of the might and the glory of the lord.

If my boss gives me a hard time at work and I go home and kick the dog, my kicking the dog may well be tied to my hard time at work - it doesn't justify it. But, by allowing myself to come to an understanding of the "tie" between the two, it may be easier for me to adjust my actions to having a hard time at work.

My understanding is that the executioners said the beheading was tied to the torture. We can accept the connection without in any way accepting that the torture justifies the later murder. But recognizing the connection may help us to understand the reality of what's happening, and hopefully will allow us to act and react to situations more intelligently.

rape, sexual assaults, beating and murder is in ours. (Which, of course, it is) Tie it together, go ahead.

and will be milked for all it's got. And of course will be used as "I told you so" by the Inhoffe crowd.

I'm not buying the conspiracy line yet, but it is mighty conveeeeeenient: this shows "the enemy" to be barbarians, and will serve to help people forgive nastiness toward them. Once you demonize the enemy, you crush internal dissent.

It's interesting that this guy is the son of an anti-war family and had been held in U.S. custody for awhile when he was there, but it's also plausible that he was "a man without a country" in a completely hostile land. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be on the outs with the "coalition" while trying to get my ass out of that "country" right now. He's also Jewish, but that works both ways.

Things that smell fishy often have fish around. Yet still...

is it possible that Chalabi et al had the video of this for some time, say April 10th, and have just released it through sources to take focus away from the Iraqi prison tortures?

The more than 700 soldiers and other civilians would be alive, as well as 10's of thousands of Iraqis. No two wrongs don't make a "right", but one big stinking act of evil has resulted in thousands of wrongs.

anyone but the savages who cut off that guys head for the world to see. Its a disgusting video and I cant believe people are using this mans brutal death to make political statements or to attack bush. I have a huge ethical problem with that. Its inapropriate and an insult to his family and friends. :puke:

Yes, it was brutal and disgusting and yes, these men can be called savages.

However, maybe you can re frame the "blaming Bush" or make "political statements to attack Bush."

George Bush is the President of the United States. He is responsible for the policy and everything inclusive in this war. Just maybe, if he had read some history or had listened to those who gave him information on what could happen, it would have turned out differently.

Another history note is not knowing nor believing that the Vietcong could be so brutal and inhumane during THAT war. Same scenario; different country.

You are aware, are you not, of the concept of multiple causes? Not all effects have a single cause.

Here, for instance, but for the Fierce Warrior Chieftain's invasion of Iraq, Nick Berg would not have been wandering about that country.

The war on (some) terra probably plays a role in it. Even if one accepts the idea that Muslims just spend their lives looking for Americans to kill, one might consider this question: how many Americans were beheaded by wild Muslims before the war on terra? I think one would find the number hovering right around zero.

The prison torture probably plays a role in it. I think Americans are thinking that the Abu Ghraib story started right about the time CBS showed the pics on teevee. I think it rather likely that the torture stories were out and about in Iraq long before that (given that the Red Cross and the US Military knew about it last year, it's a little hard to believe that nobody in Iraq knew about it--word of mouth can be an effective tool for disseminating information).

It is certainly true that it's easy to take tracing causation to its reductio ad absurdum. "If only he hadn't been born, this never would have happened." But it's not all that hard to distinguish between distant cause and proximate cause.

Of course this was a savage murder perpetrated by savage murderers. But anyone who says that's the end of the story is oversimplifying.

BTW: Thinking about causation issues, and even suggesting that the Small Bush Man might bear a share of the guilt for this does not constitute justifying the murder or excusing the murderers. That's a logical fallacy that's been wonderfully popular since the WTC/Pentagon attack. It's especially comforting for Americans who are uncomfortable with introspection.

Finally, I assume, based on your indignation, that you are quite comfortable with saying that the responsibility for the torture of Iraqi prisoners begins and ends with the people who were right there participating in it. After all, if you assign fault to anyone other than the savages who perpetrated the torture, you are justifying the torture. Right?

You might want to take a look at what his father said.

Guess what, he blames Bush.

Time to eat that puke, eh?

I love it.

no one can find even a hint of justification for this barbaric event.


i hope no one does either. and someone said they wanted these people who did this to pay. you betcha. it was horror itself, ugliest i have seen of man

and it is to the americans, doesnt mean we take out two thousand innocent people, babies innocence because of this. or create the iraqi as representitive of what these people did.

we created them seems to be your claim which I just don't think is true. Do you really believe that our violations of the Geneva convention had anything to do with this? I think their hatred runs much deeper and the torture was used as propaganda for extremeists like this video was as well. The al-queda PR guy knows how to play to his audience.

Let's say you come into my house (country) uninvited and abuse and rape my wife or sister and kill my brother?? And then I chop off your head with a machete? Who's to blame?

that they were doing so precisely because of Abu Ghraib.

So this is what you get when you fuck the Geneva protocols. And everybody who supported this war is responsible.

someone on live TV"? What exactly is "western style behaviour"? And how does this relate to the Geneva convention? Aren't non-Western countries signatories? And are you trying to argue that beheading is non-Western behavior?

But then again Critical thinking skill aint exactly encouraged here in america