Should we mourn people like Nick Berg?

[a_unique_person]

No one deserves to die like that. His death remided me of the death of Daniel Pearl. I have not watched the video, nor do I intend to. His killers should be caught and dealt with by law.

I don't think he was sensible to be running around a madhouse like Iraq is at the moment. Kind of like those idiots who do that round the world solo sail race, and go too close to the South Pole to shorten the distance. When their yachts breakdown, they expect millions of dollars to be spent on them to be rescued.

It is not prudent to wilfully place yourself in danger.

 

[EGarrett]

Yes, there IS a difference. The first is called "dumb luck"; the second, "courage" or "idealism" or "selflessness"--or, as cowards call it, "foolishness".

Really? So a person who runs across a busy street to tell someone else they dropped their pen is courageous and selfless? Or is it just foolish because they could have yelled? Nick Berg had plenty of other options for what he wanted, like joining the Red Cross or Peace Corps. He chose to go about it in an incredibly dangerous manner and paid the tragic price.

Courage, idealism and selflessness are what you can call it when someone risks their life for a very compelling reason...like directly saving another person's life when no one else can. What Nick Berg did is just a complete failure to understand the unnecessary danger that his actions were putting him in...even when others tried to tell him. That's not courageous...that's stupid.

That, and I'm sure he raised an eyebrow or two with the spooks.

The who?

 

[zenith-nadir]

Courtesy of sacredcowburgers.com.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Over at fark.com they're abuzz with all the weird aspects to the Berg case.

His whole reason for being in Iraq was weird, his behaviour in staying in the country even after the FBI had picked him up was weird, his background was weird (teaching people to make bricks?), and he previously had some kind of involvement with Al Quaeda. The story his father gave out to "explain" that link was as fake as a three dollar bill.

The video of his decapitation has weird time jumps and a lack of blood that seems weird to me from my limited knowledge of arterial spurting. Apparently a US government translation of their speech has them identifying themselves as Al Quaeda, but other people say this is a blatant mistranslation of a similar sounding phrase. The video overall has the same dodgy quality as a Bigfoot tape.

There are a variety of allegations about the video (that the speakers had Russian accents, had hands that were too pale and whatnot) all of which sound like the kind of thing people make up just to be interesting. But I haven't seen an expert discussion of it yet anywhere.

The most baffling thing about the whole affair is that there is no clear point to any conspiracy about Berg. If he was working for the CIA or Mossad then it's not at all clear what he could have been meant to be doing. If he was working for Al Quaeda, the same applies. The whole affair is just bizarre on several levels at once.

 

[Marian]

Even before that, he had let some guy on the train use his email account. That man was a Mr. Mo-sow-ee of 9/11 fame. ( i spelled it phonetically, since my movie comes on in 4 minutes and that's not time to look up how to spell it; you know who I mean )

Have heard it wasn't him, but an associate of his. Dunno though, whatever answers they provided apparently were seen as sufficent.

The one thing that many 'conspiracy' theories seem to overlook is...the guy was jewish. He's about as likely to be accepted by islamic terrorist organizations as the Aryan Brotherhood would take a black guy.

 

[Marian]

Double posted, because I hit refresh. D'oh.

 

[pgwenthold]

On the other hand, can you blame the U.S.? The guy had no credentials, nothing more than a noble spirit guiding him over there. He was in danger, and the U.S. government didn't want him to be. A corps of "free agents" roaming around the country walking in to traps like Berg did is not exactly what the U.S. wants. He should have joined the International Red Cross, he could have contributed and would have been under the umbrella of that organization and its protection.

And note that his actions were indeed a threat to the US. Going in with no connections or protection like that makes him a prime candidate for blackmail or coersive acts. For example, I don't know if it is true, but the group claims they offered a prisoner exchange. Suppose it is true? Should the US Gov really be having to give up some of its prisoners to get back some doofus who was wandering around on his own? Such acts sabotage the American effort. Of course the US government is going to not be happy.

They should have picked him up and hauled him back to the US.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Re: Re: Re: Should we mourn people like Nick Berg?

Please share.

Not proof, but here goes:
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=7391

 

[Marian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Should we mourn people like Nick Berg?

Not proof, but here goes:
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=7391

From that site:

d) On April 10, after he was released, Berg visited an Iraqi man who was once married to his aunt and helped him create an e-mail account. Question: did his former uncle have political ties that caused any suspicions for the Coalition?

And I've read that the man he visited was the brother of the man who had been married to his sister (his sister had passed away). So...what's the relationship? Distant in-law from deceased sister's marriage? Or former uncle?

Too much conflicting information, much of it unsubstantiated. I'm not saying questions shouldn't be raised (I think they should), but I think based on what I've seen (mostly elsewhere) that people are jumping to all kinds of conclusions based on limited, and potentially erroronous information.

An Iranian newspaper had a piece basically implying that this (Berg's execution) was all an American set up to draw the world's attention away from the abuses the soliders committed at the Iraqi prison. And to get Americans outraged at the Iraqis again rather than at Washington, blah blah blah.
http://www.tehrantimes.com/Detailview.asp?Keyword=Nick Berg&Da=5/16/2004&Cat=2&Num=29

Anyway I think there are many valid questions/issues, but I think there's just not a lot of information (and what is available seems to often be conflicting) to jump to conclusions. Including why he was there, who he was in contact with, etc.

 

[Mycroft]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Should we mourn people like Nick Berg?

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
Not proof, but here goes:

You know, it seems there are some unanswered questions about the Nick Berg affair. The top question on my list is if he was actually alive when they cut his head off. When I look at the video, it looks to me as though he were propped up, and then after there is no movement that can't be explained by the people handling him.

Not that it's easy to tell with the crappy video.

 

[Tmy]

There are "Bergs" being killed almost every day. Except theyre called soilders. Sure their death may not be filmed, or they may be shot or blown up by a road bomb instead of beheaded. But the resulting death and and motives of the killers are the same.

 

[varwoche]

There are "Bergs" being killed almost every day. Except theyre called soilders. Sure their death may not be filmed, or they may be shot or blown up by a road bomb instead of beheaded. But the resulting death and and motives of the killers are the same.

Someone who is fighting an invading army isn't, imo, in the same category as someone who beheads a civilian.

(Preemptively, this is not a statement of support for the Iraqi insurgency.)

 

[Tmy]

Someone who is fighting an invading army isn't, imo, in the same category as someone who beheads a civilian.

(Preemptively, this is not a statement of support for the Iraqi insurgency.)

Yeah but the "invading" has been over for some time. Alot of these troops are outsiders who are just sort of hanging around. Much like Berg.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

And note that his actions were indeed a threat to the US. Going in with no connections or protection like that makes him a prime candidate for blackmail or coersive acts. For example, I don't know if it is true, but the group claims they offered a prisoner exchange. Suppose it is true? Should the US Gov really be having to give up some of its prisoners to get back some doofus who was wandering around on his own? Such acts sabotage the American effort. Of course the US government is going to not be happy.

They should have picked him up and hauled him back to the US.

They could always have traded the at least 300 prisoners who have been released. I understand up to 2000 prisoners are going to be released. Would that have sabotaged the American effort?

 

[Samus]

me: That, and I'm sure he raised an eyebrow or two with the spooks.

EGarrett: The who?

The secret squirrels, the spies, the clandestine service folks over there. Sorry 'bout that, I figured it might be a well-known term. Guess I shouldn't assume that.

 

[EGarrett]

They could always have traded the at least 300 prisoners who have been released. I understand up to 2000 prisoners are going to be released. Would that have sabotaged the American effort?

I think that would count as negotiating with terrorists...which, of course, the U.S. doesn't do because it would only breed tons more hostage takers.

There are "Bergs" being killed almost every day. Except theyre called soilders. Sure their death may not be filmed, or they may be shot or blown up by a road bomb instead of beheaded. But the resulting death and and motives of the killers are the same.

I think Berg is supposed to stand out because he was an "innocent civilian" who could not protect himself. You are always supposed to differentiate between the opposing soldiers and the civilians in a war.