Well... He's certainly direct.
I don't think it would be fair to judge the father at this time of sorrow, especially considering the extreme circumstances.
The dad is distraught and already has admittede he is antibush and antiwar before this all happened. He is now looking for blame, and something he already hated will work.
Does being distraught mean he is definetely wrong then? Granted he is looking for someone to blame but by mentioning Bush and co. when he is at his most distraught doesn't mean that he is not blaming the right people.
Well, unless the conspiracy theorists are right, and Bush/CIA really killed berg, instead of Al quaeda, then yes, it DOES mean he is wrong.
Nick Berg was not a soldier. He was not required to go to Iraq. He went as an independent contractor. He traveled regularly without guard and alone (not normal for western individuals in Iraq!)
In the end, as macabre is at may seem, Mr. Berg does have to take some responsibility for putting himself in such a situation. However, the bulk of the blame is on those that kidnapped him and killed him.
Someone once said, "You can't legislate common sense." Even if Bush was not in office, this man was in a part of the world where he wasn't wanted, wandering around by himself. If they wanted a hostage for any reason (and there is always some reason) he was available.
I don't think you can blame the victim for being murdered. That's like saying "It's her fault she was raped, look at the way she was dressed!" It just doesn't work.
Personally, I'd like to see a world in which we have no religion, no borders, no greedy politicians screwing us all over for a few dollars; in which we all can wander around wherever the hell we want. Sure, it's just a fairy tale. However, even in the world we do have, not much is going to keep you safe from nutters. Something like 198 people died smack in the middle of the USA when McVeigh decided to go postal. A guy here in Melbourne was bashed unconscious the other day because some idiot didn't like the way he parked his car. It doesn't matter where you are, you're always vulnerable to nutters. We shouldn't have to even consider the matter of which places are more or less dangerous. The only factor we should have to consider is how to prevent the nuttiness occuring.
What are you saying? Is it that these people who killed Berg are just plain evil? C'mon, even I got the symbolism of the entire "ritual" of the killing: They SAID it was in retaliation for the mistreatment; the orange jumpsuit; them cutting the head instead of just killing him. You're NOT dealing with plain, stupid, psychopaths. These people are fighting for a cause which they believe (with good reason) is just and fair. Not that I'm saying they are correct - just you need to empathise to undrstand.
Personally (coz I'm anti-war) I say that he would never have been killed if Bush was not in power (there would be no war - in Iraq at least).
I do agree with you when you say that he should have used some common sense and taken precautions but as stated above, his lack of common sense was not the reason for his death.
Refer to my avatar!!!
but in this capitalist society of greed, you're correct when you say its just a dream...
No, but I do disapprove of their methods. The problem is that these people know that the US will not negotiate with them. If the US gives in to terrorist demands, where would it stop? What will the next group ask for?
This man should not have been in a country with which his home country is at war, without a good reason.
I'm already not liking the direction I think this thread is going - turning into a political system debate - so I will counter you just briefly Artman.
Wasn't Berg in Iraq to rebuild some infrastructure? That was good reason! Also, wasn't he detained by troops at the airport in Iraq? As I've read up so far - it seems that his own country denied him the right to leave Iraq therefore they caused his death.
Anyway - the politics I was referring to was the definite capitalist twist here. It seems that the war culmunated in a whole bunch of foreign investors, like Berg, swoop in on Iraq so to make a quick buck. Hmm...nice ending eh? :yuck:
Good reason. More needs to be done along these lines.
To put your life in jeopardy for money is not a good enough reason to be there in my opinion.
The reasons for his detainment are still being investigated. I have read conflicting reports on this matter. But if he wasn't there, he wouldn't have been kept there.
He also never would have been killed if Michael Berg had never impregnated his wife all those years ago in the first place. Is Michael therefore to blame as well for his son's death?
Generally we don't ascribe blame or guilt unless conscious intent is involved. It was Nicholas's intent to go to Iraq in spite of the obvious dangers; it was the killers' intents to brutally murder an American. That about covers the intended acts that directly led to this event.
Let's blur the lines a bit. Suppose a woman walks through a town that she knows is populated by ex-rapists, and suppose she wears nothing but a skimpy T-shirt that says "I dare you to rape me." Does she still deserve no blame if she is raped?
Berg must assume at least some blame for his own death, definitely more so than what can be pinned on Bush. He knowingly walked into a dangerous situation, and he could just have well have chosen not to have done so. If I bet all of my money on a hand of poker that I know has a pretty good chance of losing, of course I must assume some blame for the loss of my money. Berg gambled, and he lost. Blaming Bush for his murder is like me losing that hand of poker and blaming the person who dealt me my cards. Even if that external agent created a perilous situation for me, ultimately it was a perilous situation I chose to engage in, when I could have avoided it altogether. Therefore, I must assume some blame for my losses.
THE TERRORISTS ARE COMPLETELY WRONG , ALWAYS. There is no just cause to kill innocent civilians on purpose. If someone has a just cause, hes not a terrorist. The beheading of Nick Berg has no just cause and is done by terrorists. Isnt it crystal clear theyre wrong? Empathise with them all you want, they are still wrong. How can you express yourself so mildly ("not that im saying theyre correct")about a beheading or terrorism in general. Are you neutral on terrorism?
Believe it or not, MANY ppl think these terrorists are right. If i blow myself up tomorrow and kill 3 schoolbusses filled with girls, i wasnt right was i? Did i have a right to do it if i was a muslim? What if my country is at war? What if their enemy soldiers abused fellow POW's? What if i was really really religious, a fanatic, then you would understand why i did it wouldnt you?
It should be this crystal clear to evryone that terrorism is wrong, but its not and public empathy is the reason. The abuse scandal, Bush, oil and false WMD claims all make it easier to understand the terrorists. But remember, ITS CRYSTAL CLEAR THEYRE WRONG
A girl should be able to walk naked through any town on Earth without fear. The fact that she can't reflects badly not on her, but on the entire friggin species.
if a girl should be able to walk naked in any town on earth without fear, she should be a robot. What was the point btw?
Studentx, please just stay out of it. You're much better off that way.
An absolute HORRIBLE analogy, due to the fact that all data shows that the way a woman dresses has nothing to do with her likely hood of being raped.
Before I continue, let me tell you a parable:
Many years ago, Indian braves would go away in solitude to prepare for manhood. One hiked into a beautiful valley, green with trees, bright with flowers. There, as he looked up at the surrounding mountains, he noticed one rugged peak, capped with dazzling snow. I will test myself against that mountain, he thought. He put on his buffalo-hide shirt, threw his blanket over his shoulders and set off to climb the pinnacle. When he reached the top, he stood on the rim of the world. He could see forever, and his heart swelled with pride. Then he heard a rustle at his feet. Looking down, he saw a snake. Before he could move, the snake spoke. "I am about to die," said the snake. "It is too cold for me up here, and there is no food. Put me under your shirt and take me down to the valley." "No," said the youth. "I know your kind. You are a rattlesnake. If I pick you up, you will bite, and your bite will kill me." "Not so," said the snake. "I will treat you differently. If you do this for me, I will not harm you."
The youth resisted awhile, but this was a very persuasive snake. At last the youth tucked it under his shirt and carried it down to the valley. There he laid it down gently. Suddenly the snake coiled, rattled and leaped, biting him on the leg. "But you promised," cried the youth. "You knew what I was when you picked me up," said the snake as it slithered away.
Now, you see, this parable can be taken two ways.
One, the boy was partly at fault because he went against his judgement and paid the price.
Two, good things happen to bad people. The boy's concious decision to go against his judgement has NO part in responsibility, and it's only the snake that is to blame for biting him.
I go by number one. Nick Berg knew what Iraq was. He paid the price for it. He was a white westerner who regularly traveled alone. He put himself in the snake pit, if you will. Would you travel willingly to Iraq right now, knowing what is going on?? Nope, and most people wouldln't either, unless they had a reason that the risk they KNOW about is worth it. Berg took the risk, and he paid a price for it. I'm not saying the the kilers are not at fault, but the killers didn't put Berg in Iraq - he did!
No borders means no government. No government means I can kill you with no retribution. That's what you want?
The rest of your talk is,again, poor parallels. The guys at the Oklahoma federal building, and the guy who parked a certain way didn't go to a warzone where westerners were being targeted. They weren't conciously aware of the snake like Berg was.
Separate names with a comma.