News Is the death of Nicholas Berg a result of George W. Bush's actions in Iraq?

[Adam]

New York - The remains of Nicholas Berg, the US hostage beheaded by Islamic radicals in Iraq, arrived in the United States on Thursday as his father blamed President George W Bush for his death.

"Nicholas Berg died for the sins of George Bush and (Defense Secretary) Donald Rumsfeld," Michael Berg, visibly upset, told ABC television.

"The al-Qaeda people are probably just as bad as they are, but this administration did this," he said.

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1526906,00.html

Well... He's certainly direct.

 

[Shahil]

 

[Chen]

I don't think it would be fair to judge the father at this time of sorrow, especially considering the extreme circumstances.

 

[member 5645]

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.

 

[Shahil]

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 definitely 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.

 

[member 5645]

Does being distraught mean he is definitely 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.

 

[Artman]

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.

 

[Adam]

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 occurring.

 

[Shahil]

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.

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.

 

[Shahil]

...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...

Refer to my avatar!



but in this capitalist society of greed, you're correct when you say its just a dream...

 

[Artman]

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.

I agree.

What are you saying? Is it that these people who killed Berg are just plain evil?

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 into 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.

 

[Adam]

Refer to my avatar!

Yup.

 

[Shahil]

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?

 

[Artman]

Wasn't Berg in Iraq to rebuild some infrastructure?...

Good reason. More needs to be done along these lines.

...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.

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.

 

[hypnagogue]

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).

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.

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.

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.

 

[studentx]

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.

THE TERRORISTS ARE COMPLETELY WRONG , ALWAYS. There is no just cause to kill innocent civilians on purpose. If someone has a just cause, he's 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 I am 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 wouldn't 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

 

[Adam]

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.

 

[studentx]

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?

 

[Adam]

Studentx, please just stay out of it. You're much better off that way.

 

[member 5645]

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 occurring.

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 conscious 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.

 

[member 5645]

Studentx, please just stay out of it. You're much better off that way.

And to think, it is ME who is getting moderator threats of being banned.

 

[member 5645]

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.

By the same accounts, Berg was offered esctorted travel to Jordan, to an airport. He said he already has arrangements in Kuwait.
He regularly traveled alone, odd and dangerous, unlike most others.

 

[GRQC]

THE TERRORISTS ARE COMPLETELY WRONG , ALWAYS. There is no just cause to kill innocent civilians on purpose.

Please contrast your statement with the at least three reported homicides in the prison abuse scandal under investigation. Remember, they weren't beheaded in 15 seconds, but were beaten to death -- or beaten and left to die.

If someone has a just cause, he's not a terrorist.

No, he's a CIA operative or a Marine, I guess.

 

[Adam]

I've heard the story before, of course, in many forms. However, I'm of the opinion that among humans, we should be able to walk freely. We can't expect a live and let live policy from a tank full of sharks. But humans are not sharks. I would absolutely agree with the other policy IF I was willing to view humans as nothing but mindless survival-machines.

And to think, it is ME who is getting moderator threats of being banned.

I'm doing the kid a service by suggesting he simply sit back and read for a while.

 

[member 5645]

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.

I am fully, and utterly, at a loss of words on how anyone can possibly truly believe this.
If some English guys hadn't come over and started a new country, then there would be no America, and Nick Burg couldn't have been born here, and...
OR WAIT! If Columbus and Amerigo Vespuci (sp?) hadn't set sail and discovered America!
OR even better! If no one had ever created weapons for war!

THe only thing someone can change is their reaction to the actions of others. The war happened. Nick Berg was no more required to be there than he was required to run in the middle of Saudi Arabia yelling "die muslims".

Two are to blame(and I'm not even sure if blame is the right word for this), at this point, in this matter.
Nick Berg and his killers.

 

[member 5645]

I've heard the story before, of course, in many forms. However, I'm of the opinion that among humans, we should be able to walk freely. We can't expect a live and let live policy from a tank full of sharks. But humans are not sharks. I would absolutely agree with the other policy IF I was willing to view humans as nothing but mindless survival-machines.


I'm doing the kid a service by suggesting he simply sit back and read for a while.

Acting as if your utopia was in existence, when you know it's not (or do you?) is either stupidity or insanity.
What you want to happen and what IS happening are different things.
I don't spend money just because I wish I won the lottery.
I don't leave my doors unlocked when I'm gone because I hope no one will rob me.

 

[Artman]

Please contrast your statement with the at least three reported homicides in the prison abuse scandal under investigation. Remember, they weren't beheaded in 15 seconds, but were beaten to death -- or beaten and left to die.

The beating of prisoners by American military personel outraged Americans as well as the rest of the world.

The beheading of an American citizen by terrorists only outraged the Americans the rest of the world seems to think he had it coming just because he was an American.

How's that for a contrast?

 

[Adam]

Acting as if your utopia was in existence, when you know it's not (or do you?) is either stupidity or insanity.
What you want to happen and what IS happening are different things.
I don't spend money just because I wish I won the lottery.
I don't leave my doors unlocked when I'm gone because I hope no one will rob me.

We do not live in a perfect world. However, that in no way means I should cease recommending ways in which the world might be improved, or voicing my opinions on how I think things should be. It absolutely does not mean I should sit back and ignore the hypocrisies and injustices of the world we live in.

 

[Adam]

The beating of prisoners by American military personel outraged Americans as well as the rest of the world.

The beheading of an American citizen by terrorists only outraged the Americans the rest of the world seems to think he had it coming just because he was an American.

How's that for a contrast?

Well, it's wrong, for starters. I don't think he "had it coming" at all. I don't know anyone who thinks that.

 

[member 5645]

We do not live in a perfect world. However, that in no way means I should cease recommending ways in which the world might be improved, or voicing my opinions on how I think things should be. It absolutely does not mean I should sit back and ignore the hypocrisies and injustices of the world we live in.

No one is saying you should cease attempting to make that world a reality.
But saying that putting yourself in a known dangerous situation is not your fault at all is saying that you ARE ignoring reality.

 

[member 5645]

Well, it's wrong, for starters. I don't think he "had it coming" at all. I don't know anyone who thinks that.

www.english.aljazeera.net[/URL]
Read the comments by people interviewed in the middle east.

 

[Artman]

Well, it's wrong, for starters. I don't think he "had it coming" at all. I don't know anyone who thinks that.

I was using hyperbole. Certainly there are many in every country who feel this was a horrible crime. But if you read a few public opinion polls from the middle east, you will find some that believe it was justified.

 

[studentx]

Please contrast your statement with the at least three reported homicides in the prison abuse scandal under investigation. Remember, they weren't beheaded in 15 seconds, but were beaten to death -- or beaten and left to die.

I always do, theyre just as horrible.
When an Iraqi POW is killed, the focus is on him being a civilian(endlessly repeated, as should be). When an American civilian is killed, the focus is on him being american, him possibly deserving it for Abu graib and new theories.
Already for many ppl (including regulars here), Nicks horrible death is blamed on both sides when its these sick terrorists that are solely responsible.

And Adam i will explain what i meant with the robot girl if it was too deep for you. According to Christianity and Islam god gave us free will, so if we lived in the perfect world without crime where naked girls could swarm us, there would be no free will (if you can't do evil, good isn't a choice either is it?). So we would be robots!

 

[member 5645]

I always do, theyre just as horrible.
When an Iraqi POW is killed, the focus is on him being a civilian(endlessly repeated, as should be). When an American civilian is killed, the focus is on him being american, him possibly deserving it for Abu graib and new theories.
Already for many ppl (including regulars here), Nicks horrible death is blamed on both sides when its these sick terrorists that are solely responsible.

I am laying the responsibility for this on anyone except the young man who took a risk, al beit one that I understand why he took it, and the gamble didn't pay off - and the terrorsts that killed him.

Perhaps we should blame Berg's dad for not stopping him from going?

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think it would be fair to judge the father at this time of sorrow, especially considering the extreme circumstances.

I was talking about this with my boss, who is somewhat to the right of Rush Limbaugh (seriously). He thought it was a disgrace: I agree with you. I'll let him slide on this one.

 

[russ_watters]

I always do, theyre just as horrible.
When an Iraqi POW is killed, the focus is on him being a civilian(endlessly repeated, as should be). When an American civilian is killed, the focus is on him being american, him possibly deserving it for Abu graib and new theories.
Already for many ppl (including regulars here), Nicks horrible death is blamed on both sides when its these sick terrorists that are solely responsible.

Important point: there is a double standard here (and Artman is right - though its not absolute, there are a lot of people who by into it). When a POW (a soldier at best, possibly a terrorist) is abused/killed, the focus is (rightfully so) on the criminal act done by the soldiers/cia to the individual. When an American civilian is killed, the focus is on the justification of the killing due to the fact that he was an American.

But then, we already covered this in the 'dehumanizing of america' thread (Njorl's excellent post). In the eyes of our enemies, Americans are not worthy of individual human rights and can be killed to avenge an affront to the rights of "their people" (an irony I'm certain is lost on them)(I put "their people" in quotes because by and large, the people they claim to represent don't want anything to do with them - as moral people should).

 

[russ_watters]

Sorry for so many posts, but I have a theory:

I think its unwise to underestimate terrorists (though my opinion of them is quite low). Is it possible that they knew about the flaw in using a civilan to avenge the death of a soldier but didn't have an american soldier available to kill in that way? IIRC, he mentioned in his rant about coffins of soldiers.

Not that I necessarily believe he makes the distinction, but its a possibility.

 

[honestrosewater]

No government means I can kill you with no retribution.

My father punished me when he disapproved of my behavior. Would you consider my father a government?

 

[member 5645]

My father punished me when he disapproved of my behavior. Would you consider my father a government?

Will your father stop be from killing you? or him?

 

[honestrosewater]

Will your father stop be from killing you? or him?

Well, I don't know what he would do. He was a firefighter and put himself in danger to save many lives. He is now in prison for murder and attempted murder. He broke into our house in the night and attacked my mother with the intention of killing her (by his own confession). My mom's new husband awoke and was stabbed to death, saving my mom's life. My father said he did it to get custody of his children. (My mom was granted full custody in their divorce, and refused to let him visit us.) He gave up trying to get custody by going through the courts. The government didn't work for him, so he worked for himself. Now he is in their custody. The government didn't work for my stepfather, and now he is dead. True story and relevant to your question (which is the reason I told it).

The point is that individual people can reward and punish, protect and harm, with or without governments. Governments don't interact with people. People interact with people. Governments don't kill people. People kill people. Governments don't love people. People love people. Governments don't punish people. People punish people. Etc.

The concept of governments only complicates the situation. The concept of anarchy can be frightening if it is not understood or explored. That is why it has become synonymous with disorder and chaos. And that is why I brought up the subject of parents raising children.

Well, this is a complex issue and perhaps beyond your interest. I just wanted to point out what I perceived as a misunderstanding.

Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[Simon666]

THE TERRORISTS ARE COMPLETELY WRONG , ALWAYS. There is no just cause to kill innocent civilians on purpose.

Yes there is a just cause, if it is a threat to US business interests or when people ask social rights they should be killed. You can even get promoted for it to UN ambassador. conservatives love speaking about scum in the UN, well, they are in at least one occasion absolutely correct.

John Negroponte:

He is accused of sponsoring terrorism for supporting the Contra insurgency against the left wing Sandinistas, the first ever democratically elected government of Nicaragua. He is also accused of inciting Contra attacks on civilians.

 

[Shahil]

Is it possible that they knew about the flaw in using a civilan to avenge the death of a soldier but didn't have an american soldier available to kill in that way?

Interesting viewpoint and I do agree with it. As I said earlier, there ARE 2 sides here and you must respect that. You may not like one side but you MUST empathise! Can any bosy here relate here! Also, I said this before also, I don't believe "terrorists" are right in what they do BUT you must understand where they are coming from!

 

[Shahil]

Just thought of something.

A war normally has opposing factions. So the factions here are:

Coalition vs. Terrorsist

Am I the only one to see the bias and stupidity in that statement!

 

[studentx]

Can any bosy here relate here! Also, I said this before also, I don't believe "terrorists" are right in what they do BUT you must understand where they are coming from!

So, when terrorists blow up civilians, you remind us we must empathise with them. When Americans blow up civilians, will you remind us to empathise with them?

Coalition vs. Terrorsist

Am I the only one to see the bias and stupidity in that statement!

I hope for Allahs sake that you don't insinuate Coalition is as much a terrorist as Osama.

 

[Simon666]

I think he insinuates that besides terrorists there are genuine resistance fighters who do not like to be occupied by any foreign country or organisation like the UN.

 

[jimmy p]

I don't think I can REALLY blame Nick Berg or anyone. The only thing I can say is that he was a little naive. But then, who would have gone to Iraq and expected to have been beheaded? No-one. How many reports have there been of News-teams and other Western civilians being kidnapped AND brutalized. I don't think I have heard recently. There are quite a lot of reporters in Iraq and they DO get about a bit. But they don't seem in much danger. Maybe they have military protection, but when is that going to stop a terrorist.

Before this event occurred can anyone honestly say that this is what they would expect to happen to THEM if they went to Iraq? I know I couldnt. But then, bad news happens to other people.

 

[kat]

Interesting viewpoint and I do agree with it. As I said earlier, there ARE 2 sides here

I think there are far more sides then 2.

and you must respect that. You may not like one side but you MUST empathise!

Some I can respect, others I cannot and..no, I do not have to empathise.

Can any bosy here relate here!

There's a lot here I can't relate to, one is the singularity of some peoples views. Such as there only being the 2 sides, or the view that Iraqi's do not want, or somehow are not advanced enough to grok self determination through democracy, or that they somehow don't desire it. All the while closing your eyes to who it is that are the "terrorist"/"Militants" and continueing to claim what Iraqi's feel or Iraqi's want.

Also, I said this before also, I don't believe "terrorists" are right in what they do BUT you must understand where they are coming from!

I don't think it's neccesary to "understand" where they are coming from in the manner that I think you're suggesting. I think it's important to understand what their goals and methods are in order to defeat them and allow Iraqi's the self determination they desire and that is supported by Article 21 of UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948.