my view of the Berg murder video

[Primal Instinct]

Originally posted by YellowJacket
Im not convinced the video was real, Id venture to say its a fraud....

You aren't kidding, YJ. Here's my take on it.
I watched the video of the Nicholas Berg killing up to the point just before they killed him. I could not stand to view the rest of that disgusting evil deed. I am somewhat confused by this video though. There are several questions that are posed to me from it that I can't seem to let go of when I try to rationalize them in my mind. I can't seem to find a viable answer for them. Here are a few examples; the five hooded men standing behind Berg appear not to have dark skin, like that of a middle eastern man but instead appear to be light skinned or even caucasion in appearance. Look closely and you can see the skin tones of their hands in comparison to that of Berg's skin tone. Also, Berg does not look severely distressed by these men at this point- granted, he doesn't know what fate is about to befall him. Another thing that truly bothers me about this video is that the men involved are somewhat heavy-set and not thin like a large majority of young and middle aged arabic men. These men have builds similar to that of Americans.

Why is the man on the end at the right wearing white sneakers? That seems pretty out of place given the region and climate there in Bagdad. The other terrorists I've seen in videoclips usually wear sandals. Something else doesn't make sense to me here. From other video clips I have witnessed, the terrorists (including Al Zarqawi) are enraged and very loud when pronouncing their statements. This guy does not even sound like Al Zarqawi and he's not enraged by his outward appearance. He also is reading from a script which doesn't really seem to be very authentic and his Arabic is poor, to say the least.

I guess what really caught my attention and has since begun to bother me the most about this video is that the chair that Mr.Berg is seated in looks exactly like the same chair in several of the photos taken at Abu Ghraib prison. Don't take my word for it, look for yourself. The photo of several guards surrounding the man on the floor shows the same type and color of the chair that Berg was seated in prior to his demise. Another photo shows Lynndie ? sitting in the same type of chair with her fiance standing behind her. This brings to mind the expertly proven fake photos of Oswald holding a rifle on the cover of Time magazine. It just rings hollow to me.

I have no doubt that Mr. Berg was murdered but I am beginning to have serious reservations about who exactly did the killing. Perhaps a qualified independent investigator using voice recognition software would help to determine whether or not Al Zarqawi was in fact the person who decapitated Mr. Berg.

We must also keep in mind that Berg was detained by Iraqi police and that they (Iraqis) have claimed to release him to US officials in Bagdad. The US said that is not so but can offer no conclusive proof to this account. I highly doubt that Berg- an American- would have been detained without prior knowledge of the US military intelligence community there in Iraq. The Iraqi police is currently not a stand alone agency and is directed (or at least guided) by the US forces there. It would explain the chain of custody in which Berg may have been in US hands during the filming of the decapitation video. Where did the bright orange jumpsuit come from? That's the kind that the Iraqi prisoners have to wear when they're allowed to wear clothes. The walls are similar to Abu Ghraib prison walls too.

I know how this must sound- like some odd conspiracy bullshit- but if you just look at the evidence presented you can make up your own minds. I think having some clandestine conversations with former intelligence personnel and professional voice recognition specialists might help shed some light on this situation. It would not be the first time in history that CIA/military Intel has performed criminal acts to justify their methods and causes. It could be used as a diversion to help reduce the scrutiny of the American public with regard to Iraqi prisoner torture and abuses that have been recently made public. There is more to this tragedy than meets the eye. I hope that I'm wrong about this.

[goliath]

i love a good conspiracy theory...

[Stonecold54]

Originally posted by goliath
i love a good conspiracy theory...

:agree:

[rude]

That would be crazy if Americans killed him.

Question for everyone, how would you feel if we found out Americans killed Berg as a distraction to the naked pictures of soldiers? Would you still support our government and etc?

[imonboardtoo]

Damn, rude. That's a nasty what if. I don't think that theoy makes any sense based on the recent release of 300 Iraquis from the prison. THAT was the U.S. response to the scandal, not killing Berg. The gov. knows we're in deep shit about the prison pictures, but I don't see how they'd go that route for diversion.

[Primal Instinct]

It would not be the first time that the US fabricated evidence or sacrificed one of their own for the cause of war. Anyone here know about the Gulf of Tonkin incident? It formerly brought the US into the Viet Nam War.

On July 31, 1964, the American destroyer USS Maddox (DD-731) began a reconnaissance mission in the Gulf of Tonkin. The official purpose of the mission was to obtain information about North Vietnamese coastal defense forces. Other similar U.S. ships were involved in supporting South Vietnamese commando raids on the North Vietnamese coast during the same period.

On August 2, three North Vietnamese torpedo boats, mistaking the Maddox for a South Vietnamese vessel, launched a torpedo and machine gun attack on her. Responding immediately to the attack, the Maddox, with the help of air support from the nearby carrier Ticonderoga, destroyed one of the attacking boats and damaged the other two. The Maddox, suffering only superficial damage by a single machine gun bullet, retired to South Vietnamese waters where she was joined by the C. Turner Joy.

On August 4, a new DESOTO patrol to North Vietnam coast was launched by Maddox and the C. Turner Joy. The latter got radar signals that they believed to be another attack by the North Vietnamese. For some two hours the ships fired on radar targets and maneuvered vigorously amid electronic and visual reports of torpedoes. It is highly unlikely that any North Vietnamese forces were actually in the area during this gunfight. Captain John J. Herrick even admitted that it was nothing more than an "overeager sonarman" who "was hearing ship's own propeller beat." Also in 1995, General Vo Nguyen Giap, commander-in-chief of North Vietnamese forces at the time, disavowed any involvement with the August 4 incident, though he did confirm the August 2 attack.

On July 31, LDNN in "Nasty's", the name commandos give to the fast attack boats, attacked a radio transmitter on the island of Hon Nieu. On Aug. 3, they used an 88mm morter to attack a radar site at Cape Vinh Son. The North Vietnamese responded by attacking hostile ships visible in the area. While US officials were less than honest about the full extent of hostilities that led to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, critical claims that a naval commander fired weapons solely to create an international incident tend to overlook circumstances and opportunistic responses that suggest a less intentional motivation.

Squadron commander James Stockdale was one of the U.S. pilots flying overhead August 4. In the 1990s Stockdale stated:

"[I] had the best seat in the house to watch that event, and our destroyers were just shooting at phantom targets -- there were no PT boats there.... There was nothing there but black water and American fire power."

Lyndon Johnson, who was running for reelection that year, launched retaliatory strikes and went on national television on August 4. Although the Maddox had been involved in providing support for South Vietnamese attacks at Hon Me and Hon Ngu, Johnson's Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, went before Congress and denied that the United States Navy was supporting South Vietnames military operations. He thus characterized the attack as "unprovoked." Despite the fact that there was no second attack, he also claimed before Congress that there was "unequivocable proof" of an "unprovoked" second attack against the Maddox. A year later, Johnson said in private "for all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there."

As a result of McNamara's testimony, on August 7, the Joint Resolution passed the House unanimously, and the Senate with only two 'no' votes: Senators Wayne Morse of Oregon, and Ernest Gruening of Alaska.

The United States officially got into military action in the Viet Nam war and 58,000 US soldiers died as a result. That is what I'd call sacrificing our own for the gain of a few.

[rude]

Originally posted by imonboardtoo
Damn, rude. That's a nasty what if. I don't think that theoy makes any sense based on the recent release of 300 Iraquis from the prison. THAT was the U.S. response to the scandal, not killing Berg. The gov. knows we're in deep shit about the prison pictures, but I don't see how they'd go that route for diversion.

I know it sounds bad bro, but what if. Im not against our government im just saying what if? look at the information Primal Instinct just put up, it has happened before, what if it happened again?

[Primal Instinct]

Originally posted by rude
That would be crazy if Americans killed him.

Question for everyone, how would you feel if we found out Americans killed Berg as a distraction to the naked pictures of soldiers? Would you still support our government and etc?

The death of John F. Kennedy is a prime example of the US killing one of its own to alter US military policy. It has since been determined by the House Assassination Committee in 1997 that the evidence suggests that there was a probable conspiracy in JFK's death.

War is big business and big money. If you prosecute war and it's going badly, the public will want out- unless some type of incident or outrage (eg., the Tonkin Gulf Incident in Viet Nam) is committed by the other side which will renew the vigor and calls for increased aggression against the enemy. Whether or not the act(s) were actually committed by the other side is irrelevant because what matters is just the appearance of the enemy committing atrocities in the eyes of the public, who ultimately decide whether to continue the war efforts there or not. By the time the actual truth is found out (if ever), it is too late because the war will probably be over and those responsible for the fabrication of facts are out of reach of the law- either because they have died, have some form of plausible deniability, or have received a presidential pardon. In the JFK case, the pertinent files won't be released until the year 2045, when those found accountable will have passed from this earth and are beyond the reach of US law and public scrutiny. All records in the Kennedy Collection will be opened by 2017 unless certified as justifiably closed by the President of the United States.

[Luftdude]

Very interesting information. The Nazis did something similar like this preluding World War 2.I'm going to quote this verbatim from the Time-Life book Prelude To War in the World War 2 series by Robert T. Elson.

"On the chilly windy evening of February 27,1933, Nazi Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels was entertaining the Fuhrer at a family dinner when the phone rang, and an agitated Party member announced that the Reichstag, home of Germany's parliament, was on fire. Goebbels thought the report so farfetched that he didn't bother to tell Hitler about it right away.
But the fire was real enough; it gutted the old building. Real enough, too, was evidence brought out later suggesting that none other than Hermann Goring had secretly planned the blaze to generate support for the Nazis-and justify repressiion of their opponents. The chance to pull off the scheme fell into Nazi hads by luck, in the form of a mentally retarded Dutch Communist, Marinus van der Lubbe.
The week before the fire, and two weeks before the 1933 German elections, van der Lubbe hiked from Holland to Berlin with a muddled purpose of his own. In a bar, he boasted that he intended to burn the Reichstag; Nazi adherents overheard him and told Goring. Nothing was done to discourage van der Lubbe from pursuing his plan. He followed through. When police answered the fire alarm, they found him inside the Reichstag's main hall, naked to the waist, having used his shirt as tinder to start several small fires. But one man could hardly have set the blaze that so quickly destroyed the Reichstag; Storm Troopers may well have helped him. In any case, van der Lubbe was arrested forthwith.
In the midst of this deadly farce Goring arrived on the scene. 'This,' he cried is, 'is the beginning of the Communist revolution! Every Communist official must be shot! Every Communist Reichstag member must be strung up this very night.'
Thus Goring launched a campaign of terror against Communists and all other anti-Nazis. Meanwhile, van der Lubbe was quickly brought to trial. Alongside him in the dock, on the shakiest of pretexts, were four other Communists-only one a German, the other three visiting Bulgarians.
The court acquitted all but the wretched van der Lubbe. Alternately raging and apathetic, he confessed, and was judged guilty of arson and high treason. Though they condemned him to death, the judges rewarded van der Lubbe's honesty in confessing by sentencing him to the guillotine rather than the hangman's noose that was prescribed by law."

And this, you see, is how the Nazis won the election. And they did something similar to start World War 2.

LD

[imonboardtoo]

Ok, guys. Message received. Never doubted that money is a great motivator. But, in an age when pictures of Abu Grahib prison shenanigans make it to the press, why would the Kennedy facts still not be public? Even Clinton's head made it into the Washngton Post. Why not the truth about Kennedy? Still too much conspiracy theory there to satisfy me.

[Lexi]

Its very scary. Though this is not the first person to point out all the information regarding the Berg killing.
Many people are finding that the video was "edited" and "dubbed" to the point that they have to ask WHY. Why the editing? Why the dubbing?

But then again, those terrorists are so good at planning things, that maybe they made it that "obvious" (wearing sneakers, light skinned arabs) to throw us all into a loop and actually THINK it is the american government. Or Primal may be right. He is not the only one who has noticed this.

Not only that.... Nick seemed to have some sort of "connection" with Iraqi people. From the looks of the video, do you think that he "sacrificed" himself (allowing the Iraqi's to kill him) to throw things off? I mean, he looks pretty calm in the video and even one who sacrifices himself DOES hurt when they are killed. Yes, he screamed, but he didnt try to fight much. Could it be that he knew? (God, I know this sounds so wrong but I am just trying to point things in a different direction by asking whats-ifs)
Or could it be the american government? OR, the obvious...could it just be that the savages took him into their place and decided to kill him because he was an american? An american JEW with the last name Berg?

Sorry for the rant; just confused by sooooo much information that isnt really leading us anywhere because the government just hides it from us, especially if it is to benefit us.

Ahh and one more point. The government is saying that they did not take him into custody, but in other articles, I hear of Nick saying that he WAS detained by the U.S. government for 13 days. After he was released he stated that he "was not mistreated". Why do they need to add that comment? Are they trying to cover something up?

I just dont know!

[DJ TurboSexy]

I believe the video is real and that terrorists killed Berg. I don't honestly think Americans could do this to another human being. While theire sawing his head off they're chanting praises to God, that's fucking insane man.

Also here is a link to the actual video.

http://nerdfish.org/iraq2vediom.wmv

If you have any doubts about watching it, then I highly recommend you don't watch it. It's disgusting and brutal.

[Primal Instinct]

Originally posted by imonboardtoo
Ok, guys. Message received. Never doubted that money is a great motivator. But, in an age when pictures of Abu Grahib prison shenanigans make it to the press, why would the Kennedy facts still not be public? Even Clinton's head made it into the Washngton Post. Why not the truth about Kennedy? Still too much conspiracy theory there to satisfy me.

The JFK thing was the most serious breach of government security ever in the US. Although much information pertaining to the investigations of JFK's death have been released, a lot of it still remains under wraps or has been inked out. There are still many people alive who have intimate knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding the assassination and the subsequent cover up. They would not be allowed to take responsibility for their possible roles in the event. Some of which, if leaked to the public, could certainly embarrass former high placed government officials and probably bring out some prosecution attempts, as murder is a crime with no statute of limitations. A few examples of those involved in various degrees that are still alive;

Former US President George Bush Sr.- also a former director of the CIA under Nixon. He would most certainly have some inside knowledge of a plot to kill JFK including the fact that Clay Shaw was deeply involved with the operational aspects of the plot and worked as a covert agent of the CIA.

Former President Gerald Ford- sat on the Warren Commission and was certainly aware of the single assassin theory was the only focus and the predetermined findings of the lengthy report.


Current US Senator Arlen Specter- as a junior senator at the time, he proposed the rediculous "magic bullet theory" to the Warren Commission. This is the crux of the WC report which targets Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin and would therefore preclude the possibility of a second or third gunman and constitute a conspiracy.


Former Kennedy Administration Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. He opposed the war in Viet Nam after many fact finding missions under Kennedy but afterwards worked for Lyndon Johnson as Secretary of Defense. He testified in the inquiry of the Gulf of Tonkin incident and denied that the US was covertly ating against the North Vietnamese. They were actually doing a lot of covert actions that probably would have been considered as acts of war against the N Viets. Something definitely changed his opinion about getting into Viet Nam while under Johnson. In 1968, he came out openly against the war there, claiming it as "unwinnable." He would have intimate knowledge (although possibly only after the fact) of distinct troop movements and states of readiness by the military on the day of the assassination. The troops were on alert to stave off any possible attacks from the USSR during and just after the assassination attempt. The US would be vulnerable from a nuclear strike due to all of the ensuing chaos of the murder of JFK. Troops were already in place to counter any possibility of this happening. It denotes a premeditated plan of action which the state of readiness was contingent upon (the assassination attempt).


Certain high ranking generals during the time of the assassination are still alive. The planners of the plot would need the cooperation of at least some of these individuals to set up financing, training & equipment, time schedules, etc... Secret Service agents were superceded by military intelligence officers in and around Dallas that day and the typical uniformed military soldiers who were assigned as standard backup from the local Dallas Army base were told to stand down and that they would not be needed that day for the President's visit. Someone also had to have the President's motorcade route changed but it is not known who ordered it and for what "official" reason. These people may certainly still be alive today.

Former Texas Govenor John Connally passed away a few years ago. He was shot in the assassination attempt while sitting in front of Kennedy in the limo. He was the guy that was supposedly also wounded by the "magic bullet." It is suspected that he still had bullet fragments in his wrist and leg. His family refused to provide an autopsy after his death or even x-rays of his body. This simple examination could have proved that there was more than 3 shots (from different points of origin) and therefore, a conspiracy.

Surgeons and hospital personnel at Parkland Hospital in Dallas who were either involved with the President's autopsy or witnesses to it. The autopsy was stopped short of completion and dissection of the President's wounds were also prematurely stopped. A full dissection of the wounds would have made it possible to determine whether a wound was a point of entry and from which direction it came. Not good thing when trying to frame a single man as the assassin. The surgeon who had performed the autopsy "voluntarily" burned his autopsy notes. In hindsight, it probably saved his life.

Dozens of witnesses interviewed by the Warren Commission, FBI, Secret Service and Dallas Police have met untimely and mysterious deaths. Stuff like overdoses, single car accidents, victims of violent crimes, etc... The list of fatalities is truly astounding when looked at in its entirety. Dead men tell no tales.

[Primal Instinct]

Originally posted by DJ TurboSexy
I believe the video is real and that terrorists killed Berg. I don't honestly think Americans could do this to another human being. While theire sawing his head off they're chanting praises to God, that's fucking insane man.

Also here is a link to the actual video.

http://nerdfish.org/iraq2vediom.wmv

If you have any doubts about watching it, then I highly recommend you don't watch it. It's disgusting and brutal.

People do strange things in the name of "patriotism." Look at Tim McVeigh and the bombing of the Murray Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

People are capable of doing awful things to others everyday. It doesn't matter what nationality you are. Killing is done in the name of religion. It is done in the name of revenge. Killing is also done in the name of patriotism.

Jeffrey Dahmer was a horrific monster and yet he was an American. So he wasn't a military guy but there could easily be military or CIA spooks who could do some very awful acts in the name of national security, such as in the Viet Nam war. Just because we don't see them doesn't mean that they don't exist or haven't happened. Another example would the fact that whole villages were burned in the jungles of Africa when ebola virus broke out to prevent the rapid spread of the disease that had no known cure. I'm sure that no one would want to fess up to something like that yet some things (ugly as they are) need to be done with or without official government sanction.

I'm not saying that the Berg killing definitely has the US behind it. I am saying that it is certainly not an impossibility and deserves a much closer look at all of the evidence and circumstances surrounding it. There are a lot of unanswered questions here. The timing of the murder is just a little bit too conveinient for the US military who is in the midst of its prisoner abuse scandal, which also includes the murdering of several prisoners while under US government control. This Berg murder has developed inflammatory anti-Iraqi feelings which somewhat cut into the sympathy that many Americans had felt for the Iraqi detainees. Remember, not all of the prisoners were even quilty. It is estimated by our own military that more than 70% were not quilty of any crimes or insurgent activities.

A public decapitation of an American will definitely help dissolve the public outcry of Iraqi prisoner abuse from here in the US and assure our call to avenge the killing and perhaps forgive any infractions committed by the prison guards at Abu Ghraib. After all, what is some torture as compared to a decapitation? It's too conveinient and much too close to the time frame in which the Iraqi police had turned Berg over to the US military for questioning, according to his letters to his parents. He was the perfect terrorist target- a jewish American. For all we know, he could have been told by costumed US military or even US private contractors that they were making a video to whip up anti-terrorist sentiment and he cooperated, not knowing that he really was intended to become a murder victim. He certainly couldn't have seen it coming from his posturing in the video. And what is with the edits? It seems to me that it can't be that difficult to proclaim an announcement and then carry out the murder in one stsic shot. I'd really be curious to see what was edited out. This whole tragedy just needs to be looked at more in-depth and not so quickly discarded by us as simply a retribution tactic for Iraqi prisoner abuse. I really feel in my heart that there is more to it than it appears and what we've been told to believe is not quite right. We have been lied to before by this administration about the reasons to invade Iraq. Why not about the reasons to stay there then?

[ECKARDT]

These are some pretty wild conspiracy theories. I certainly do not believe that the US would stage an execution of one of it's own citizens. It is kind of difficult for people to sometimes look past the media's interpretation and see things from outside the box. Consider this: We pushed through 600 miles of desert, took Iraq, which is where right between Syria and Iran the two largest terrorist harboring nations in the world, and have attempted to set-up what...a democracy. Now the jihad fighters aka terrorists are pouring into Iraq to fight our trained military. They are coming to us instead of us searching for them. They are in Iraq instead of blowing up buildings in New York. As an active duty Marine I can tell you that things outside our borders are not always pretty. We have never had to endure the hardship that othewr countries have to. Bitching about the price of gas...hell we pay $3.00 for a latte and that is only 16 oz. Most Americans take their freedom for granted and love to b e Monday morning quarterbacks. We should consider ourselves lucky that we are able to express our views without fear of repercussions.