Arabs not buying Berg story - blames CIA

http://kavkazcenter.com/eng/article.php?id=2785

--- snip ---

The first suspicion was caused by a video where Berg was wearing an orange American jail suit. Berg was arrested by the Americans and had time to tell his friend that he was in an American prison. Intelligence services were denying this and were saying that Berg was arrested by the Iraqi police for Israeli stamps in his passport. But later on it turned out that he was questioned by Americans, and FBI agents came to his parents’ house to find out whether he was involved in any terrorist activities.

Berg’s e-mail showed that he was held in custody by the Americans. Turned out that an American was held in an American prison and beheaded right after he was presumably released.

In this connection there is a question whether the American was released from prison at all. If he was, and if he was late for his flight because of the arrest, as his parents first claimed, then why he ended up being captured by 'terrorists' and dressed in an American jail suit? How would militants even get a suit like this in the first place, and why would they make their hostage put it on?

The experts who saw the video say that the man posing as Jordanian native Zarqawi does not speak the Jordanian dialect. Zarqawi has an artificial leg, but none of these murderers did. The man presented as Zarqawi had a yellow ring, presumably a golden one, which Muslim men are banned from wearing, especially so-called fundamentalists.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

thanks for that - i hadnt kept track of this aspect of the story.....

... I'm trying to think of a word. Sickening? Frightening? Horrible? No word seems quite adequate to express what I'm feeling just considering the possibility that U.S. agents could be responsible for Mr. Berg's death.

I do think that the dad isn't going to let this thing pass. He's already been more than forthcoming with his opinions of Bush and, while that may be partly his terrible grief, I don't think he's going to drop it as time passes. I'll be looking to see if he sets up any sort of memorial and I'll be sure to contribute what I can. For all the rotten stuff that is out there, it just seems like each of us has to try to put something decent into the world.

did it..the cia several months ago signed off the prison interrogations. plus the cia would put together a much better video.

Those guns are clearly H&K MP5 submachine guns.

Anybody we know?

They're MP5 submachine guns, manufactured by H&K (Heckler & Koch).

Actually, I googled & found photos of several AK-47s, and one of the modifications KINDA looks like an MP5 because they switched out the stock for something more compact like the MP5. So I'm not sure now, but the AK-47 has wood on it, whereas the MP5 does not, and all I see is steel black on those guns. I swear they're MP5s...

If you know your firearms, you could impress the bejeezus out of everyone here by doing a photoessay on the subject.

Hmm.. a Galil:



And an H&K MP5:



See, the Galil does not look like something you could easily tuck under your arm like the assailants in the video are doing. The MP5 is perfect though.. it's compact.

Thanks for the photos.

--to also do a blowup of a still from the video so people can see directly what you see?

Watch this thread

and this is the most common variant. The stock can fold/detatch on both of them

http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/galil/galil.htm

Most assault rifles are manufactured in many different configurations.

If anyone has vid capture software they might be able to post the guns from the vid

ALTHOUGH
that vid is extremely ambiguous and I don't think it's producers intended to record an accurate account of what took place in that room. It's a piece of contrived propaganda and IMO it cannot be expanded upon by these detailed analyses.

BUT WHY
is there no mention of any autopsy on Nick Berg. I understand traditions in the Jewish faith call for immediate burial, but surely the US gov would have placed precedence on discovering as many truths as they could. :P (Sorry, I crack myself up sometimes)

Disclaimer: I'm NOT a gun lover

They appear to be a little more adventuresome than other rags out there. maybe a few others can forward it to get it going. It would really sink Bush if this is how his propaganda killers work.

but maybe Art Bell, if he's still on the air, would be the one to investigate this?

My comments in bold in your snip


The first suspicion was caused by a video where Berg was wearing an orange American jail suit. There is no proof that this was an American prison jumpsuit. This is merely a supposition based on an appearance in the video. There are other explanations offered. "Could be" does not equal "must be." Berg was arrested by the Americans and had time to tell his friend that he was in an American prison. Again, this is a supposition. We have no independent proof that Berg was arrested by Americans. A person can write just about anything in their email to friends that they want to. That doesn't make it true. Intelligence services were denying this and were saying that Berg was arrested by the Iraqi police for Israeli stamps in his passport. But later on it turned out that he was questioned by Americans, and FBI agents came to his parents’ house to find out whether he was involved in any terrorist activities.

Berg’s e-mail showed that he was held in custody by the Americans. See above. Email saying that he was held in US custody is not the same as proof. It may be a starting point to look for proof, but in and of itself it isn't. Turned out that an American was held in an American prison and beheaded right after he was presumably released. Again, this is a statement of unproven fact. What's that saying about "Tell them something often enough and they'll believe it"? Second, I have not seen anything that says Berg was beheaded immediately after he was released. The reports say he was released on April 6, disappeared on April 9, and his body turned up on or about May 8. That's a whole month of missingness that isn't being addressed.

In this connection there is a question whether the American was released from prison at all. This is a most disingenous statement. The author first assumes as part of his theory that Berg was imprisoned and released based on Berg's own statements. Now the author is saying that based on those statements, something else is true! If he was, and if he was late for his flight because of the arrest, as his parents first claimed, then why he ended up being captured by 'terrorists' and dressed in an American jail suit? Again, this is all based on an unproven assumption. And the author isn't even adhering to her/his own original theory. Can we start from one assumption and follow it through? It appears we can't, because the author is jumping around every which direction. How would militants even get a suit like this in the first place, This statement tries to suggest that the acquisition of an orange prison jumpsuit is impossible for "terrorists," yet as has been posted right here on DU, that particular merchandise is available on the Internet! Hence, terrorists would have little difficulty obtaining an orange prison jumpsuit, if indeed that is what Berg was wearing and why would they make their hostage put it on? Try making sure all the prior assumptions are true first. . . .

The experts who saw the video say that the man posing as Jordanian native Zarqawi does not speak the Jordanian dialect. Zarqawi has an artificial leg, but none of these murderers did. The reports taht Zarqawi has an artificial leg are based on more assumptions, rather similar to the Osama bin Laden kidney condition. There are reports that suggest one thing or another, but no hard proof. Again, if the original premise isn't solid, the rationale that follows may be just as shaky. The man presented as Zarqawi had a yellow ring, presumably a golden one, which Muslim men are banned from wearing, especially so-called fundamentalists. The statement "presumes" that the ring is gold, but unless someone has proof of such, there are other possible and plausible explanations: that the ring is silver or brass or nickel silver, none of which violate fundamentalist teachings. Again, the trap is the "could be, therefore must be" variety. yes, the ring COULD be gold, but that doesn't mean it IS.

The experts mentioned that the man calls Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) 'Gracious Prophet', while it is only Allah, Whom Muslims call 'Gracious'. Who are "the experts"? What is the nature of their expertise? Are they absolutely positive that under no branch of Islam -- there are many, you know -- would Muhammad ever be called "Gracious"? In order to be considered "proof" of anything, all reasonable doubts must be eliminated.

More and more questions are coming up about Mr. Berg’s murder and some of them have already been presented to the country’s leadership by the American public. Well, glory be! A rational and probably accurate statement! /sarcasm off/

But major American mass media, which support the war in Iraq, are ignoring this information. Questions do not constitute information.

Infowars.com published the material titled «This is a 98 % secret US operation». A website can publish just about anything it wants. Aztlan.net publishes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Does that make them accurate? The chair that Nick Berg was sitting on before the execution was the same as the chairs in Abu-Ghraib prison, where tortures were being committed. The chair was SIMILAR, not "the same." No proof has been brought forward that it was even the exact same style, much less the exact same chair. Once again, "could be does not equal must be." These chairs were brought by the US army. This statement suggests that no white molded resin plastic chairs were present in Iraq prior to the invasion of the U.S. forces. Numerous photos posted here on DU show that this is categorically untrue. It was also reported that even though Nick Berg was a civilian, for some reason his body was delivered to a US Air Force base in Dover, where the dead servicemen are brought. As was posted here on DU last week, there is NO civilian air transport out of Iraq. Given the nature of the situation, it seems LOGICAL that the military, which is in charge in Iraq (well, sort of in charge) would take on the task of returning the body. Berg was, after all, a citizen, and I have not heard any reports that he was in Iraq illegally or engaged in illegal activities that would have prevented the U.S. CPA from taking on the responsibility for returning the body. The author seems to be trying to make a point that this action was somehow suspect, when in fact it could have had a very mundane explanation as well. When there are two "could bes," at least one of them has to be a "must not be."

Meanwhile more and more new circumstances are being revealed when the video is being studied. The doctors Which doctors? What are their names, their credentials? are they just names on websites, or are they accepted experts? are saying that there is almost no blood shown during the beheading, while normally a lot of blood would have been gushing if the person were alive. Again, there has been at least one possible explanation -- that the killers held a tightly bound Berg in a position so that the blood would not spray outward but down onto the mat. No blood was seen around it or on the hands of the one who cut the head off. Those who have closely reviewed the video say that there is a very large stain on the mat, presumably blood, after the beheading. And the presence of excessive blood on the hands of hte murderer MAY be the explanation for the change of individuals at the end of the tape, from "Dark hooded individual" to "White hooded individual." Then it must have been a dead person who was beheaded. Could it have been a dead body? Perhaps. But could be does not equal must be. At least one detailed analysis of the video here on DU suggests strongly that Berg was alive until the filmed beheading.

All militants filmed on the video footage are too fat for the Iraqi standards, especially for militants, and they all had white palms of their hands. This is racist -- and foolish logic. The clothing worn by the persons in the video and the clear indication that they were wearing ammunition vests suggests that they weren't as "fat" as they appeared. And there is no conclusive proof that not a single Iraqi or other Arab or Muslim potential terrorist could ever not be over weight. Second, EVERYONE has pale palms, and the soles of the feet. Third, NOT ALL ARABS, OR MUSLIMS, OR TERRORISTS ARE DARK-SKINNED! When the video was studied it turned out that the scream shown in this footage was recorded earlier and it was probably a woman’s scream. Again, where is the proof that the scream was recorded earlier and where is the proof that it was "probably" a woman's? The analysis I mentioned above also showed that when the audio is re-synched to the video -- a distortion that could have been a result of compression and/or redownloading and uploading -- the words and the motions match perfectly.

The weapons that the murderers were holding in their hands resemble AKs, but the experts claim that this is a modified AK-47, Israeli-made Halil. I don't know diddly shit about guns and don't ever want to know, so I can't speak on the technicalities. But I can speak on the usual question: Who are "the experts" and what is their "expertise"? If no credentials are offered, then this statement is no more credible than any internet raving anywhere.

It seems the thought of people looking at this independently terrifies you. Why is that? Is it your mission in life to cut down on "internet ravings"?


Work of art Tansy_Gold, work of art.

In which case, I totally understand.

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

Currently unemployed.

However, I used to be a newspaper stringer and got paid by the inch. :evilgrin: I've also written novels. Long ones. And been an editor. And taught creative writing.

I have no problems with independent thought at all -- indeed, I wish I saw more of it around here.

What I do have a problem with is sloppy thought (oxymoron as that may be) and I do my best to, shall we say, clean it up.

I am not a formally trained logician; the various logical fallacies escape me. But I can think in a reasonably logical fashion, and it bothers me a great deal to see people leaping to what I consider really flimsily based conclusions.

Early in the Berg "investigation" someone pointed out the white plastic chair in the Abu Ghraib photo and the similar chair in the Berg video. When I merely suggested that plastic chairs might be common in Iraq, I was categorically told they weren't. Even when people posted photos, pre-invasion, of plastic molded chairs in Iraq, the evidence was dismissed: either the chairs weren't the right color or the right size. And even today, the white plastic chair continues to be cited as evidence that the Berg murder was committed inside Abu Ghraib prison. Huh? You're kidding me, right? Wrong. There are people who believe this.

There's another thread in GD on the issue of head scarves and the Berg video. I personally think it's a valid avenue for investigation. But in the absence of any really credible evidence, I don't think a theory proves anything. And I've even offered suggestions for how this could be followed up. So no, I'm not in the least opposed to independent investigation or even conspiracy theorizing. I just think the theories should be based on something resembling fact.

And if you don't like my posts, skip 'em. I will neither know nor care. :-) Or put me on ignore. I'm sure many others already have.

so long as they aren't used as the sole support for conspiracy theories.

especially when it comes to treating conjecture as fact, as the poster points out, or making horribly stereotypical statements.

"That's a mighty white ear under that hat," says one Berg tinfoiler. Wiping one's nose is a "very unmuslim act" according to another. Another apparently believes any watch beyond a three dollar Timex is too fancy for "Desert Dwellers" yet another.

What do Iraqi hands look like? Are they darker than Sicilian hands? How about Colombian? Are Iraqi hands as dark as all Ethiopian hands, or only some of them? If one of the killers were eating a BLT could we then exclude Mosad involvement? Should every owner of white patio furniture be considered a suspect? Is there an Islamic law that limits the number of video cameras per beheading to one?

Please.

beheaded Berg?

now thats a LOT of explaining... doubt dr. occam would be convinced.

i heard there is a LIST with over 50 anomallys with the official berg story.

berg telling his folks a cover story to hide his relations with well known terrorist is certainly understandable and would explain why the fbi was interested in this do-gooder... after learning about the systematic TORTURE of POW and INNOCENTS and various other WAR CRIMES and atrocities would certainly give one pause considering the number of embolden issues generously highlighted above.

:hi:

peace

Cover story Berg told his parents? Relationship with well known terrorist?

I've missed these. got some details or links?

but you got it all figured out, though :crazy:

peace

is that the mere number of "anomalies" is being used as an argument that there's something really fishy about the video. But in fact, most of those "anomalies" have been debunked.

White plastic chairs, gold-colored jewelry, sneakers, fat arabs, etc. etc.

People played the same game with whether Hillary Clinton murdered Vince Foster. They'd bring up a hundred "anomalies" and even after they were all debunked, would argue that the "mere number" of questions raised pointed to her guilt. That's logically unsound.

I can raise a hundred questions about whether YOU killed Vince Foster, but that doesn't make my conclusion any more likely to be true.

and YOU shouldn't either.

btw: how many times are folks going to use VF to explain away all the strange DEATHS?

i appreciate the DU think-tank they have a MUCH better record then the lamestream at connecting the dots.

peace

I actually haven't read this yet --

This article summarizes and lists 50 anomalies around Berg and his death.
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/5/15/22827/0477

Your efforts would be more helpful if you were able to distinguish between fact and merely questions/contradictions/anomalies that are being identified. You keep shooting things down (in your mind) because you claim they are being stated as FACT when that is demonstrably not true at all. I noticed this yesterday on another thread, and shrugged it off, but you keep doing it. Here's but one example:

In this connection there is a question whether the American was released from prison at all. This is a most disingenous statement. The author first assumes as part of his theory that Berg was imprisoned and released based on Berg's own statements. Now the author is saying that based on those statements, something else is true!

No, the author CLEARLY states, there's a QUESTION about this issue. A question is not an assertion of "fact."

If he was, and if he was late for his flight because of the arrest, as his parents first claimed, then why he ended up being captured by 'terrorists' and dressed in an American jail suit? Again, this is all based on an unproven assumption. The author isn't even adhering to her/his own original theory. Can we start from one assumption and follow it through? It appears we can't, because the author is jumping around every which direction.

Again, the author is raising questions, not making arguments supporting any particular theory OTHER than that there are questions about the video and indeed the whole affair. The author is under no obligation to "follow through" on any particular theory since s/he's not advancing any -- just questions and anomalies.

I'm not stating ANYTHING as fact, one way or the other, nor am I suggesting that none of the possible theories can be correct.

I'm objecting strenuously to the way people appear to be analysing the so-called anomalies.

When a person writes, "Then why was he discovered wearing an orange prison jumpsuit?" that explicitly states that the question is the why part, and the orange jumpsuit is the given. If on the other hand, the question were "Was he really discovered in an orange jumpsuit?" you start by trying to establish fact.

But beginning with the presumption that he was discovered in the jumpsuit leaves out that initial verification of fact.

And yes, it's fine to question why he *might* have been left in the prison jumpsuit (a statement which in itself presumes that it's a prison jumpsuit and not something else), but it seems to me to be a total waste of time to concoct theories based on presumption.

An anomaly is something out of place, out of time, something not right in its context. An anomaly would be a plastic bottle cap buried in a previously undiscovered pyramid. An anomaly is something that defies easy explanation.

Most of the "anomalies" on the site you listed have already been explained or dismissed. I see that the list still contains the white plastic chair. While it may be a coincidence that Nick Berg was sitting in a white plastic chair moments before his murder and that there is a white plastic chair in the corridor of Abu Ghraib, the ubiquity of white plastic chairs eliminates anything approaching "anomaly" status. Does it remain a question? Sure, I suppose so, but as a solid basis for a conspiracy theory? Are you serious?

A statement like "The killers' hands were too white to have been Arab" is not an anomaly, a question, or a discrepancy; it's a racist and stupid falsehood that's been debunked at least a dozen times here on DU, yet some people insist on perpetuating it; it's on the list. Once again, "experts" are cited but neither identified nor credentialed. Yet these unnamed, unknown experts are trusted on the basis that they are believed to be non-neo-cons (no one even knows for sure if they are or aren't; my goddess, could they be neo-cons spreading disinformation?!); on the other hand, when the analysis presented by what appears to be a very knowledgeable DUer regarding the out of synch tape, etc., it is completely ignored. It's never mentioned. It's never offered as even a remote possibility. Nope, the audio and video are out of synch, so it must be a conspiracy!

That's lazy thinking, and that's what I object to.


The statement "Never trust the neo-cons!" is, IMHO, absurd. They don't lie about everything; they just lie when they can hide the lie in the truth. And to fall for the black and white, we're good and they're bad, is as dumb as boosh's "they're either with us or agin us."

It's like trying to reconcile "support the troops" with the revelations of abuse and torture. Things aren't black and white, and the danger is in trying to make them so; it's as dangerous for us on the anti-boosh side as for the Freepers who fall for it. We make fun of their idiotic rantings but never consider that "our" own might be just as idiotic.

I think a lot of DUers who are maybe young and/or have never developed critical thinking skills and/or are just plain scared shitless by what the booshies have done to the world in the past three and a half years are psychically starved for easy answers. Sound bytes and flippant posts on DU and "oooh, yeah, that sounds suspicious, so it must mean there's a conspiracy by the untrusted neo-cons!" make for easy comfort.

But they don't provide answers or solutions to problems. So hate me because I insist on thinking and urging others to think.

Typed but not proofed; find typos at will. Edited to insert an end bold tag. And then a misspelling in the subject line. Jeez.

Let me say first that I have no particular horse in this race. I find the arguments interesting. I admit to an instinctive distrust of official stories, especially in an age where official stories are so often Orwellian. If the Berg beheading was useful to the present administration, I see it as useful primarily as a distraction/counter to the Abu Ghraib story. It also serves (regardless of whodunnit) to inflame American bloodlust. I am unconvinced that anyone would be certain that it would produce a popularity bump for the Fierce Warrior Chieftain.

OK. You are very devoted to what you perceive to be punctilious analysis and sharp critical thinking. What I see you indulging in, however, is pot-calling-kettle-blackness. You are terribly upset with other people's conjecture (even when, as here, it is stated as conjecture), yet you offer not a shred of the "proof" you so stridently demand. You counter conjecture with conjecture and seem to feel that you have proven something. How does that work?

Here is an analogy: In a trial, each item of evidence is called "evidence." It is not called "proof." Proof is the conclusion drawn from the evidence. During the trial, each side puts on evidence; each side, to the best of their ability, debunks the other side's evidence. At the end of the trial, the trier of fact weighs the evidence and draws a conclusion as to whether the side with the burden of proof has sustained that burden. If, at the end of the plaintiff/prosecution case, the defense can convince the judge that the plaintiff/prosecution has failed to present any evidence which, if believed, would sustain the burden, then the judge can dismiss the case. If, however, the plaintiff/prosecution has presented any evidence (not proof), the trial goes forward, and the trier of fact weighs the evidence after the defense case.

Your position here seems to be that of the defense. You seem, however, to be saying "I am not convinced by anything offered in evidence. Therefore, the case must be dismissed." Try that in court some time and see how far you get.

You may, of course, say, "This is not a trial, so those rules don't apply." I respectfully submit that, if you are tempted to say that, you should reread what I just said.

The other problem with your presentation is this: While you make very free to criticize others for conjecture, you offer nothing more than, "We don't know for sure," and "I can offer a counter-conjecture." Why that should stand as sufficient to achieve the end you desire (which seems to be, "Everyone shut up about this," is a little hard for me to divine. In fact, unless you accept the official story as the unvarnished truth, there is no analysis of this matter which does not contain some conjecture. If you would like to criticize people who actually draw conclusions--e.g., "The CIA did it for sure"--get right after it. I agree. But why you get all sad about articles containing conjecture, especially when, as here, they are clearly stated as conjecture, escapes me.

A particularly fine example of your use of a counter-conjecture that is every bit as wild as the conjecture you find so objectionable was your theory, posted in a thread yesterday, of the multiple Zarqawis. You allowed as how it would be perfectly reasonable to suppose that the current two-legged Zarqawi represented a manifestation of the "Dread Pirate Roberts" phenomenon, and that, in fact there is no Zarqawi at all, although there are multiple Zarqawis. That you are quite comfortable chiding others for flights of fancy and loose logic while presenting such tightly reasoned theories might, some would think, call into question your own high opinion of your logical skills. (More on today's Zarqawi theory to follow.)

In today's disquisition, you fall immediately into the trap you abhor. You chide the author for stating as fact that Berg was held by Americans, then released. You have problems with what you see as the author's inconsistency you say (your material in bold):

"In this connection there is a question whether the American was released from prison at all. This is a most disingenous statement. The author first assumes as part of his theory that Berg was imprisoned and released based on Berg's own statements. Now the author is saying that based on those statements, something else is true!. You seem to have missed the "presumably" preceding the word "released" in the earlier discussion. The word "presumably," in common parlance, reserves the possiblity that the release did not occur. The glaring inconsistency escapes me.

That was out of order. To the tedious business of a more detailed response (please take no comfort if I do not respond to each and every one of your telling points; I don't have time to be doing what I'm doing here, let alone dismantle your argument word by word).

You object to the fact that the author relies too heavily on Nick Berg's own emails as proof he was detained. As a first matter, perhaps you would like to add some additional conjecture about why a person, widely advertised as a Bush supporter, would make something like that up. You are correct that this author bases his/her analysis on the Nick Berg emails. Before you get too excited about what this proves or does not, you should factor in the emails from the American consulate, which also assume Berg's incarceration. You are absolutely correct that the author's sole reliance on the Nick Berg emails fails to present all the available evidence. That does not mean that the additional evidence does not exist. You seem to have a problem with people writing posts to an internet forum, and people writing news stories, failing to present an absolutely watertight case. If that is problematic to you, you must have problems reading almost news story.

I actually agree with you that it is error to refer to Berg's garb as an American prison uni. There's nothing unique about orange jumpsuits. The principal question I have about that is why these terrorists, and no others, took the trouble to dress him up that way. It's even possible (here's one you missed) that Berg just had an orange outfit and that, consistent with other hostage/victim situations, the killers left him dressed the way they found him.

You say, "The reports taht Zarqawi has an artificial leg are based on more assumptions, rather similar to the Osama bin Laden kidney condition. There are reports that suggest one thing or another, but no hard proof." In point of fact, the belief that Zarqawi has an artificial leg is based on the fact that the US Government said so (that official story officially retracted about a month before the Berg beheading). Oh yeah: He's dead, too, but perhaps you demand less consistency from the US Gov. than from wild conspiracy theorists. Now, I think you will find little disagreement around here that anything that is the official story is per se suspect, but I don't think that's a position to which a hardheaded logician like you would support (you later say as much). But this puts you in a bit of a dilemma: You're calling the one-leggedness an assumption but not hard proof, but it is the official story. Are you saying that the official folk from the US Gov. engage in the kind of speculation that you are so upset about here? If you are, are you equally outraged by government speculation? Do you line-by-line every press release, sorting hard proof from assumption?

On the "ring trap," you apply rather the same logic that you criticize. This article is about questions, not conclusions. Again, the word "presumably" is the tipoff. You somehow turn that into "could be, so must be." It says, however, no such thing.

Ah, hell. This is really boring. You demand names and credentials of experts. I trust, then, you disbelieve all stories, good and bad, relying on "highly-placed administration officials," and any other cited source lacking name and credential. You state the obvious "anyone can print anything on the net" as if it proves something. You admit your diddliness on the issue of guns, but are quite comfortable saying that, absent expert identification to your standards, this is as credible as any other internet lunatic ravings. Well...

You seem to think what you're doing is debunking. You aren't. You're answering questions with questions. You're criticizing as speculation that which is clearly identified as speculation. But the most annoying thing is that you are presenting yourself as some sort of paragon of logic and clarity and I have yet to find where you've demonstrated that. You've got your ax to grind. Grind away. Just don't pretend that you're the agenda-free one and everybody you disagree with is a crazed ax-grinder.

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
news source.

Thank you.

DU Moderator

All these damn facts getting in the way of the official story. They must hate when that happens.

Just what will the Neocons do next as this starts to circulate through the media

Remember when the video first came out and people were so angry that we didn't buy it , they threatened to leave DU and called us psychos, kooks, tin foil, etc....

..the lack of blood from the decapitation.

I have decapitated lab rats that spurted more blood than on that video.

Something is FISHY.

Is there any independent investigation at the FBI? I do not trust anything from the CIA.

on some of this stuff. For one thing, what Berg is wearing does not look like an army issue jumpsuit. Look at the pictures-the sleeves don't go all the way down and it doesn't look the same at all. Tansy's points are legitimate. The posting, by repeating the things which are obviously not true, makes one suspicious of the rest of the information. Personally I think Berg was probably CIA and the story stinks to high heaven. There is much more there than being told. But to be credible and get to the truth, you gotta leave out the known falsehoods.

.