The Beheading of Nick Berg

[Lucas]

we've had a "help our enemy" military mentality for just about our whole history as a nation

not quite. mexico, north korea, britain/canada never recieved any substancial aid after the wars with them. don't go making up bland policy statements that aren't true.

in the context of Bin Ladden, i firmly reject that sentiment. If a murder comes to my door, i shoot him. that’s not evil. responding, with force, to an aggressor is not "fighting evil with evil"

and yet if you figured out why bin laden's got such a ferverent hatred for an entire hemisphere, then you could avert all attacks from him. It makes sense that someone's going to call the U.S.'s culture into question, and it can't be a government. the rate of consumption that the west has is totally unsustainable, and will have to be curbed, whether people here like it or not. its more of a cultural dispute than anything, and as a perfect crystalization

-the prisoner abuse shows iraqis that americans are brutal, uncaring and sex-obssessed

while

-Berg's execution shows the west that iraqis are violent, savage, primal, and hold antiquated practices that need to be changed

even today, in the paper, the letter's section had one idiot extolling the virtue of killling EVERY SINGLE ARAB as revenge, while 2 others advocated 1)napalming iraq completely 2) forcing those responsible to die by being drawn and quartered.

proof? we're idiots too!

There's an old proverb that states that when you have a hammer, all problems look like a nail

so whether

I'm not alone when i say that i believe that Bush is a moral man. And i KNOW im not alone when i say that i believe the US Armed Forces are FULL of moral men. This will stop BECAUSE our country and our armed forces are full of people who want to do the Right thing.

is true or not, the methods that the army uses are going to be actions suitable for an army's operations. frankly, i think that bush is doing what he thinks is right, and i respect that. on the otherhand, i don't think that his methods are moral at all. asides from dissipating post-9/11 sympathy around the world in less than a year, he's started 2 wars. i don't care HOW glorious and right his aims are but 2 in 4 years? that's pretty damn exaggerated.

but all that to say that there are plenty of people in the armed forces who aren't moral, and if i said bush was immoral, i'd have plenty of people to agree with me too.

basically, you supported your claim that these people are good by saying that many people believe it. well, many people dont. how does that leave your support?

probably with in a year.

of course, we can only carry them so far. soon or later daddy lets go of your bike and you gotta learn to ride it by yourself. Whether they succeed in the long run is out of our hands, unless we decide to make them a puppet state, which isn't the goal.

first off, it might not be in a year, so speculation without backing is useless

and second, if they need to get off of "daddy's" lap (by the way, even the wording of this argument was patronizing, not to mention the argument itself is), then why are troops there in the first place. after all, if they had to do it themselves, then they should have deposed saddam on their own.

there is very good reason to hold most of the people, regardless if we decide that they are "criminals" and need to be punished, or if we can live with just letting them go home when the fighting is done.

um, you said most, so you admit there are people in jail who don't deserve to be there. second, you say that being in jail is good for the "criminals". good point, i agree.

oh wait...

Forgetting all the good in the face of some bad isn't quite right.

and vice versa? where does this argument lead?

Bin Laden's GOAL is to kill ever last infidel out there

maybe his stated goal is, but do you really think that he's that stupid? the man isn't a moron, maybe his aims aren't so shallow and laughable.

agreed. we have a much greater responsibility to clean up messes we made. secondary is the responsibility to clean up messes we didn't make. some would say we have NO responsibility to clean up messes we didn't contribute to... but i'm not so convinced

shouldn't the gravity of the situation arising from the "mess" be more important than who caused it? seems so, but that wouldnt explain the U.S.'s choice not to step into african nations that have ASKED for their presense to stop civil war.

anyways, i just want to end this by stating that the first post really pisses me off, and is the exact attitude that's causing a lot of problems in the world stage right now. funny poses my ass.

[shiney]

not quite. mexico, north korea, britain/canada never recieved any substancial aid after the wars with them. don't go making up bland policy statements that aren't true

He said just about. Not for every single enemy.

Furthermore, Britain was richer than we were when we trounced them, and they were on our soil. We kicke dthemn out, not invaded england. There was no need for reparations. And they were more than able to take care of Canada.

North Korea has been disallowing foreign aid for decades. Even in the midst of the giant train explosion, they won't even so much as let reporters in. Complete shutdown.

Mexico? Ok, maybe one time we didn't help. One. OH NO THAT INVALIDATES ALL ARGUMENTS! Crap!

Bin Laden's goal is to kill all infidels, or at the very least to subjugate them all so he/Islam can more or less control the world. These are his goals, and the goals of almost all islamic extremists. Power. What do terrorists do other than try to scare people so they can get something and gain a little bit more power? Certainly they aren't in it for humanitarianism, or bringing democracy, or planting flowers and trees and petting bunnies in the sun.

even today, in the paper, the letter's section had one idiot extolling the virtue of killling EVERY SINGLE ARAB as revenge, while 2 others advocated 1)napalming iraq completely 2) forcing those responsible to die by being drawn and quartered.

proof? we're idiots too!

It might be pointed out that if you read it in the newspaper, it was probably the lowest common denominator, since news media generally uses people who will incite a reaction. It's all about ratings, readers, money, and nothing gets that like powerful (even if idiotic) statements. It doesn't speak for "us", in fact the people who write shit like that are amongst the most stupid. Those who don't think before they speak. But depending on which way the newspaper leans, they might not print the "intelligent" submissions. Just the ones that send the message they want to hammer home. Media != United States. Media = media.

[Lucas]

Bin Laden's goal is to kill all infidels, or at the very least to subjugate them all so he/Islam can more or less control the world. These are his goals, and the goals of almost all islamic extremists. Power. What do terrorists do other than try to scare people so they can get something and gain a little bit more power? Certainly they aren't in it for humanitarianism, or bringing democracy, or planting flowers and trees and petting bunnies in the sun.

so you think power is an end, and not a mean which through to be able to accomplish another end? i mean seriously, the man is flithy rich, its not like he would have lived a horrible life on oil money at home, so power as a means through which to aquire luxury is sorta ruled out. if he's opting for the "i want golden palaces and cities built in my name" type of megalomania, he could have invested: the man was not an idiot. why go out of his way to kill non-believers if he was already comfortable? no one's going to give the real reason, because only he knows, but killing for the sake of killing isn't really useful, is it?

on that token, isn't power what ALL extremists want? i mean if you look at it, i don't think its limited to islamic extremists, and in that end, islam shouldn't really be singled out.

and seriously, how do you know what the terrorists are after? do you have brunch and crumpets with them? i submit that you do not, so stop telling me exactly what they want. its a pretty obvious way of demonizing a faction you don't like.

It might be pointed out that if you read it in the newspaper, it was probably the lowest common denominator, since news media generally uses people who will incite a reaction. It's all about ratings, readers, money, and nothing gets that like powerful (even if idiotic) statements. It doesn't speak for "us", in fact the people who write shit like that are amongst the most stupid. Those who don't think before they speak. But depending on which way the newspaper leans, they might not print the "intelligent" submissions. Just the ones that send the message they want to hammer home. Media != United States. Media = media.

maybe in your paper, that's how they do it, but mine's letters page has REALLY good letters, as well as an entire section on sundays devoted to opinions and counter opinions. apart from that, all letters to the editor are checked 2 times, as in after you send it in, you have to reply to 2 phone calls at different times to confirm that you want your words printed. obviously the people who wanted the obliteration to happen weren't just throwing it off the top of their heads to sound cool. regardless, do you think that Bergs' executioners speak for "them"? i don't think so, and so my point is proved: both sides are stupid. i don't see how you can dispute that, you can try, but you'll set yourself up with a really patronizing argument.

He said just about. Not for every single enemy.

Furthermore, Britain was richer than we were when we trounced them, and they were on our soil. We kicke dthemn out, not invaded england. There was no need for reparations. And they were more than able to take care of Canada.

North Korea has been disallowing foreign aid for decades. Even in the midst of the giant train explosion, they won't even so much as let reporters in. Complete shutdown.

Mexico? Ok, maybe one time we didn't help. One. OH NO THAT INVALIDATES ALL ARGUMENTS! Crap!

it does when you look at his argument, which is related to time, and not amount, or validity, of foriegn aid. good job there, my point was, in a small one line, that until WWII, the "help our enemies" vein hadn't been hit down, which explains why britain/canada, and mexico were used as examples. NK was used because it shows that enemies can be bitter regardless of offers to aid, which is a key point in discussing the situation in iraq. try not to go overboard with no real reason next time.

[shiney]

Well I have to argue somehow, don't I? Reply time:

...the man was not an idiot. why go out of his way to kill non-believers if he was already comfortable? no one's going to give the real reason, because only he knows, but killing for the sake of killing isn't really useful, is it?

on that token, isn't power what ALL extremists want? i mean if you look at it, i don't think its limited to islamic extremists, and in that end, islam shouldn't really be singled out.

and seriously, how do you know what the terrorists are after? do you have brunch and crumpets with them? i submit that you do not, so stop telling me exactly what they want. its a pretty obvious way of demonizing a faction you don't like.

You seem pretty intent on not blaming these people for atrocities. And clearly I don't like them and I believe I am fully justified in demonizing them. What makes me wonder is where your loyalties lie...with the people fighting terrorism or committing it? You are acting awfully sympathetic to their "cause", arguing against Bin Laden's own words (kill all infidels) and making them seem like maybe they are trying to do something else than kill for power and glory? What for, more money, business? You said he's already rich so clearly that ain't it, so it's either power or because we aren't Islam. He might not be idiotic, but he's probably not very complicated either. Ultimately yes only he will know the COMPLETE reason but until that is disclosed we'll just have to take his word for it.

maybe in your paper, that's how they do it, but mine's letters page has REALLY good letters, as well as an entire section on sundays devoted to opinions and counter opinions

Clearly not, if it proves we're idiots.

i don't see how you can dispute that, you can try, but you'll set yourself up with a really patronizing argument.

Hey, what's with this arrogant tone I am detecting? You ARE aware that you're dealing with civilized people that won't put up with this bullshit right? And don't deny it, because it's plastered all over your post.

we've had a "help our enemy" military mentality for just about our whole history as a nation. the original George W is quoted as saying "Show not yourself glad in the Misfortune of another though he were your enemy". I think Lincoln officially institutionalized the principle of magnanimity towards your enemy when he tried to institute Reconstruction with a congress full of politicians who wanted to subjugate the south (as it is, Lincoln got capped and reconstruction didn't quite go off as planned. but the intention was there). After World War II we showed mercy and good will with the Marshall Plan and Macarthur’s japanese rebuilding plan.

not quite. mexico, north korea, britain/canada never recieved any substancial aid after the wars with them. don't go making up bland policy statements that aren't true.

it does when you look at his argument, which is related to time, and not amount, or validity, of foriegn aid. good job there, my point was, in a small one line, that until WWII, the "help our enemies" vein hadn't been hit down, which explains why britain/canada, and mexico were used as examples. NK was used because it shows that enemies can be bitter regardless of offers to aid, which is a key point in discussing the situation in iraq. try not to go overboard with no real reason next time.

Oh, sorry for going overboard. And here I thought I was being a bit lighthearted. Way to respect your opponent. Oh wait, nevermind.

Your arguments seem a bit ridiculous and counter-productive, like how you criticize the US for sounding like idiots then defend the newspaper that published these statements, trumpeting it's virtues as wondrous despite what you'd said in the very previous breath. What's up with that? Do you just flip flop to defend yourself, not really caring about what you're saying in the meantime?

Concerning the quotes, his statement might have a lot to do with time, but then we haven't been in that many wars except since WWII. The revolutionary, civil, war of 1812 (which is the one you mentioned? Or the french/canadian war? Either way they both invaded us invalidating them as arguments for needing to give aid. And also that sort of ignores the longest undefended border in the world, and how much economic trade goes on with Canada now. Technically, we've more than 'paid them back'.)

Don't claim your point was distinctly korea, or bitter refusals, when you were merely using those three wars to refute his argument. That's all it was and you gave absolutely no supporting evidence beyond that. You can't go back and say "Well I said that but I MEANT this" and then blast people for calling you on it.

In conclusion, I think you have a bad attitude about a lot of things in this thread. I'm not about to abuse my position as a mod and order you to stop participating, but I would suggest you step back, take a breather, and re-evaluate your stance and feelings before flying off the handle and getting all arrogant and justified on me again. I found many things in your post to be very insulting and that certainly isn't why this forum exists.

[Caska]

I haven't read every single post here, so I apologize if I'm repeating someone else's posted feelings.

I have never, in my life, been so repulsed... I'm rather speechless, only able to ask Why? What the hell kind've sick person...?

I've not seen this video, and never will. I heard on the Tom Lykis radio talkshow that he has it linked (http://www.blowmeuptom.com) but highly recommends that you do not watch. That it will repeat over and over again in your mind. Who would want to watch a real decapitation anyway? Then again I shouldn't judge.. not watching is my personal choice.

As for comparing this to the absurd photos... The photos were uncalled for yes, and in their own way were sadistic... but they don't compare to this. I'm not one for vengeance or 'balancing the scales' but shit... I just want to know how the hell anyone can be that sick.

Or maybe I don't want to know.

[Lucas]

you know, apart from the clearly sarcastic

Mexico? Ok, maybe one time we didn't help. One. OH NO THAT INVALIDATES ALL ARGUMENTS! Crap!

i didn't have a single real problem with your rebuttal. it brought up points that i needed to expand on, but didn't because my original post was pretty feggin' long.

What makes me wonder is where your loyalties lie...with the people fighting terrorism or committing it?

this, however, is clearly a personal attack. its clear mudslinging, really.

but... lets see what you're trying to get at.

i said

...the man was not an idiot. why go out of his way to kill non-believers if he was already comfortable? no one's going to give the real reason, because only he knows, but killing for the sake of killing isn't really useful, is it?

on that token, isn't power what ALL extremists want? i mean if you look at it, i don't think its limited to islamic extremists, and in that end, islam shouldn't really be singled out.

and seriously, how do you know what the terrorists are after? do you have brunch and crumpets with them? i submit that you do not, so stop telling me exactly what they want. its a pretty obvious way of demonizing a faction you don't like.

paragraph 1: you didn't refute why a millionaire with all the comfort in the world would start a crusade. in fact you didn't even touch the fact that i was trying to examine his motives to find a cause, and therefore a method to stopping them. its not like that aim was covered up or anything.

paragraph 2: i stand by my point, since you haven't touched it again

paragraph 3: motives again. if you really do have proof of psychological profiling on captured terrorists and the reasons they came to being in that state, then please, post me a link, or a reference.

now, why did i say you didn't explore motives? because i stated that power in itself is not an end, but rather a means throughwhich to achieve an end. i also stated that killing for killing's sake isn't productive. therefore the only real motive proposed by you is his religious zeal. granted, its fully possible, and perhaps probable that he is a zealot, but that's something we can't take for granted. its both underestimating an opponent, and demonizing a human, thus the assumption is harmful to make in a military and a humanitarian context.

Your arguments seem a bit ridiculous and counter-productive, like how you criticize the US for sounding like idiots then defend the newspaper that published these statements, trumpeting it's virtues as wondrous despite what you'd said in the very previous breath. What's up with that? Do you just flip flop to defend yourself, not really caring about what you're saying in the meantime?

this is funny, because you've assumed far too much. first off, i've never stated that the paper is published in the states, and i've never revealed where i come from. why? specifically so that my posts aren't viewed in a biased manner. i live in western society, that's all that matters. next, the normal levelheaded quality that my paper has is contrasted with the emotional anger resounded in those letters. this doesn't flip flop at all, it demonstrates the gravity of the emotional turmoil that western citizens face when confronted with Berg's execution.

so do i flip flop? no, i don't.

but then we haven't been in that many wars except since WWII. The revolutionary, civil, war of 1812 (which is the one you mentioned? Or the french/canadian war? Either way they both invaded us invalidating them as arguments for needing to give aid. And also that sort of ignores the longest undefended border in the world, and how much economic trade goes on with Canada now. Technically, we've more than 'paid them back'.)

1812, and thanks for demonstrating my point. my original point was a line long, and was concerned about the temporality of the U.S.'s military history. pretty simple stuff.

Don't claim your point was distinctly korea, or bitter refusals, when you were merely using those three wars to refute his argument. That's all it was and you gave absolutely no supporting evidence beyond that. You can't go back and say "Well I said that but I MEANT this" and then blast people for calling you on it.

its not quite "calling you on it" when you take 6 lines to dispute a throw in line. also, i'm glad i was able to expand on that point in later posts because at the original inception, the line wasn't a main argument of mine, not even close. it was a reminder about generalization. so yeah, i stand by my statements.

In conclusion, I think you have a bad attitude about a lot of things in this thread. I'm not about to abuse my position as a mod and order you to stop participating, but I would suggest you step back, take a breather, and re-evaluate your stance and feelings before flying off the handle and getting all arrogant and justified on me again. I found many things in your post to be very insulting and that certainly isn't why this forum exists.

apart from "calling you out" on "blasting me" for a point that wasn't related to my main arguments, i didn't say anything that's super inflamatory. if there's something you really dislike about my rebuttal, highlight it, and i'll see if i need to rephrase it, scrap it, or change it completely. either way, i think you're the one who's a bit hot off the top. you admitted to being offended by my post, and yet you stated that i was the one who needed to calm down. ironic isn't it?

if you're annoyed because of my defence of the letter ancidote, then here:

maybe in your paper, that's how they do it, but mine's letters page has REALLY good letters, as well as an entire section on sundays devoted to opinions and counter opinions. apart from that, all letters to the editor are checked 2 times, as in after you send it in, you have to reply to 2 phone calls at different times to confirm that you want your words printed. obviously the people who wanted the obliteration to happen weren't just throwing it off the top of their heads to sound cool.

this is in response to

It might be pointed out that if you read it in the newspaper, it was probably the lowest common denominator, since news media generally uses people who will incite a reaction. It's all about ratings, readers, money, and nothing gets that like powerful (even if idiotic) statements. It doesn't speak for "us", in fact the people who write shit like that are amongst the most stupid. Those who don't think before they speak. But depending on which way the newspaper leans, they might not print the "intelligent" submissions. Just the ones that send the message they want to hammer home. Media != United States. Media = media.

basically you try to invalidate my point by saying that people you don't know, in a paper you've never read, are the lower common denominator, and that they spew out ideas that are "idiotic". asides from having no proof of that, i prove my statement by highlighting the atypical nature of the letters in question

i don't see how you can dispute that, you can try, but you'll set yourself up with a really patronizing argument.

sounds mean? well its true. both sides make mistakes, and both sides have faults, because both sides are irreversably human. I stated before that the prisoner abuse and Berg are both 2 sides to the same human coin. to try and say that our humans are better than all theirs is patronizing.

Edit: whoa, how'd i skip this over

You seem pretty intent on not blaming these people for atrocities. And clearly I don't like them and I believe I am fully justified in demonizing them.

i believe i said both sides were stupid, i.e. i start on the assumption that beheading is REALLY disgusting and immoral. its not that i'm not blaming them, i'm just taking blame as a fait accomplis. As for you feeling justified in demonizing them, i can't argue against that, but i find that revolting.

I just want to know how the hell anyone can be that sick. Or maybe I don't want to know.

I think this is a really powerful way of describing a reaction to the video. well put.

[AnonCastillo]

Having watched the video from two of the sites linked to from Tom Leykis' site, the conspiracy theorists actually sound a little more credible. In both of them, the video zooms to the point that you can't make out what's happening just before the first knife hit, so I'm guessing that's how it was in the original video - they intentionally blur the picture before the knife hits.
Unless someone can link to a better quality of the video, the conspiracy theorists are winning me over.

[Sky Warrior Bob]

Originally Posted by AnonCastillo

Having watched the video from two of the sites linked to from Tom Leykis' site, the conspiracy theorists actually sound a little more credible. In both of them, the video zooms to the point that you can't make out what's happening just before the first knife hit, so I'm guessing that's how it was in the original video - they intentionally blur the picture before the knife hits.
Unless someone can link to a better quality of the video, the conspiracy theorists are winning me over.

Could you clarify? I've heard vague hints at various conspiracy elements, plus the suggestion that a very Conservative website, which classifies Berg's dad as an enemy, has something to do w/ Berg's death. So there's a lot of drek to wade through to know what you're talking about.

Not that I'll believe its necessarily credible, but I'd still like to know what you're thinking.

Sky Warrior Bob

[AnonCastillo]

Well, as far as the video being faked, that might be credible. Not sure about the rest of the theories.
Basically, the death really does look faked. Before the knife actually hits his throat, the camera zooms in and everything gets blurry. I think it might just be the quality of the video (wmvs suck even worse than most video files, plus my graphics card isn't too new, but I don't know how much effect that has). But, anyway, from the video I saw, I really couldn't tell you if they killed a person or not. The picture was too blurry when the knife supposedly hit, it didn't look like much if any blood came out, basically a lot of the points in favor of it having been faked were confirmed by watching the video. A higher quality version could easily disprove that, though.

[Dragonsbane]

Part of the problem is that war is now considered (rightly so) to be a horrible waste of human life. In order to be able to fight without feeling guilt at the taking of a human life, many soldiers begin to dehumanize the enemy, seeing them simply as "The Enemy" instead of as other human beings. When this happens, they stop treating them the way they would treat another human (duh) and start treating them as monsters instead.......I hope that made sense.......sometimes my thoughts don't translate perfectly into words........